Hertz paid Accenture $32M for a website that never went live (2019)

Re:Hertz paid Accenture $32M for a website that never went l... by nazka on Thursday July 21, 2022 @08:26PM (#32187002)

I’m not even sure insane match what you just described at that point.

Now I know someone that do that for the software for subparts of nuclear reactors and it’s exactly all the same. The specs, the time to review, the politics of hierarchy, the time to fix a simple bug (can take 2 weeks for a simple if)… But at least the specs are in a software.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hertz paid Accenture $32M for a website that never went l... by listenallyall on Friday July 22, 2022 @01:39AM (#32188907)

If you were building a nuclear reactor, would you err on the side of too much documentation, oversight, and code review, or too little?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hertz paid Accenture $32M for a website that never went l... by nazka on Friday July 22, 2022 @08:20PM (#32198799)

I was just sharing the story.

Now 2 weeks for a simple change in a if. Some changes can take months and the software is not just a few line of code so if you do the math you may start to have rust on your hardware even before the v1.0 is out. Also nobody is going to read this type of “doc” but another schema spec coder if that’s the name.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hertz paid Accenture $32M for a website that never went l... by mbrodersen on Sunday July 24, 2022 @09:29PM (#32219616)

That makes me think that formally proving the code correct using a proof assistant would actually be faster than the process you describe.

[ Parent | on HN ]