The clearest example of the difference of reliability is looking at public digital signage (on transit and elsewhere). If it's based on LED segments or something similarly basic (with old-school embedded software development) it will basically always work. New LCD Screens inside trains/busses and outside working with a modern software setup (using an OS, often with a pc architecture, quite often just displaying a website) are broken ~10%-20% of the time. Looking at (for example) busses, a large portion of the time the screen will either be blank, not display anything, old information or just wrong information. Going inside fast food restaurants with large LCDs for the menu, often something is broken, frozen or something else.

It is of course possible to make modern software more reliable. It's just much, much harder than making embedded software or PLC programming reliable. Software can be easily made more complex, but it's hard to make it non-complex or to wrap the complexity so it isn't an issue anymore. The ecosystem isn't set up for non-complexity.

If we went back to Dijkstra's notion of correctness by construction, then a specification for the program would be made, and then a programmer would prove their part of the code correct to the specification. They would write the precondition and postcondition of every effectful statement, document the invariant of every loop, and prove by induction that each loop does what it's supposed to do. Basically, annotate your program with Hiare triples. (There are books about how to do this). Then, extensive tests should be run for as much of rhe program as possible.

Nowadays, we have tools for this so that we don't actually have to write a proof by induction for every loop; instead, we have bounded model checkers. In theory, the manual proof writing could be isolated to the parts of the program whose properties a bounded model checker cannot verify.

However, it seems like this whole plan is infeasible unless regulations are written that enforce this onto the industry. It would make them a lot less productive, and therefore less profitable. The only benefit would be that software is more reliable. By necessity, it would have to become simpler, too. For instance, there's absolutely no way that web browsers like Chromium, with 38 million lines of code, will ever be verified, because they're too large and complex.

I'm not sure if you remember older software properly. The idea that an entire desktop computer, much less a web browser, could even run for weeks without a reboot would blow the mind of '90s me.

Netscape Navigator was the direct cause of at least 80% of the Mac OS 8/9 crashes I've experienced in my life. It was less common for the browser to entirely take down a Windows system in that era but I sure do remember seeing a lot of those application crash dialogs until the modern era of tabbed browsing made people care more about stability.

Prior to Windows 7 becoming mainstream I never had to check uptime when diagnosing weird behavior on end user computers because they just naturally got rebooted regularly. Now there are a lot of computers that only reboot when they receive updates that require one, and depending on the user might not get those updates very often. I see systems that haven't been rebooted in the better part of a year and some times longer every few weeks. Even more now with Windows 10+ "Fast Start" where "Shut Down" actually means hibernate so users who think they're shutting down every night actually haven't had a fresh boot in months.

Not always a blessing and I've actually recently been thinking (e.g. in context of Lua) if object orientation is in most situations not better to avoid.

The issue is as machines get way more complex this issue gets worse. Also there are generations of PLC devs that still want to stick with ladder logic. Huge fragmentation.

The fact is the unmodernized plc platforms deliver working machines and plants. The projects are built, commissioned, and unlike modern software they are finished and left to operate instead of constantly modified With no benefit to the end user

Don't get me wrong. <PLC programmers> tend to also have electrical skills and some are pretty good at their jobs, and you can learn a lot from them!

But ... they're not programmer programmers. It's a different skill-set with only so much overlap.

controlling physical processes like oil refineries, power generation, or sawmills is different from most computer programs as are the consequences of bugs or errors so it makes sense that it takes different people with different interests and skills.

PLCs replace relay circuits for Industrial Electrical technicians (hence: Ladder). And make no mistake: relay circuits are important, and is something they are very adept at!

However, this doesn't imply that they are automatically able to write or debug regular Python or C code or what have you.

-----

PS. If you let a PLC programmer at any language, they'll find a way to do ladder logic. Illustrative example (combining some features I've seen in textbooks and IRL, formatting included):

  if Tank_Level_Reached == True and EF132121 == False and Ready_To_Start == True and Finished == False and Belt == Not_Ready and Stage == 5 and Position_Left_Arm == Up :
    move_left = True
    move_right = False

   if Tank_Level_Reached == True and EF132121 == False and Ready_To_Start == True and Finished == False and Belt == Not_Ready and Stage == 5 and Position_Left_Arm == Down:
   move_left = False
   move_right = True

   if Tank_Level_Reached == True and EF132121 == False and Ready_To_Start == False and Finished == False and Belt == Not_Ready and Stage == 5 and (Position_Left_Arm == Down or Position_Left_Arm == Up):
    move_left = False
    move_right = False

There are more "engineers" writing software for your car or a train than "engineers" at Microsoft, Google, Apple or Facebook.

I don't think that someone will be happy when driving with 100 km/h on a highway, the car will suddenly decide to restart itself. There are bugs everywhere where profits are put before engineering but calling those people names is not constructive. Especially when they use SW created by "engineers" which crash with no apparent reason when they are doing their work.