It's not just software: is software running on redundant systems that can check one another for consistency and performance. You're never going to see that level of engineering in an automobile, cars would be far too expensive if they were as complex, electrically, as an aircraft. Aircraft are only getting away with it because, as you correctly observed, if the computers malfunctioned, they're going to fall out of the sky and kill all your passengers. If your car malfunctions, it just won't move/will stop moving.
In any case, the sentences I was replying to was:
> But as a software engineer, I can tell you that current software development practices do not produce software that is reliable enough to entrust it with your life.
All I’m saying is that this is wrong and we do routinely trust software with our lives. If you want to explain how it’s done and why it’s done that way, go for it, but it sounds like you think you’re arguing against it.
And yes, I know airliners have all sorts of stringent standards. But the fact remains that many of them do rely on software to keep the occupants alive.
Making software reliable enough to bet your life on it is hard, but not so hard that we should consider it to be an unattainable goal.