Am I right

Yes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LongRun @ Nov 29 2006, 02:58 PM) [snapback]355407[/snapback]</div>

Over the long term yes. Then there are the upgrades! :lol:

 

Yes, computers are a lot more reliable than mechanical devices. The hard part is doing all the design work and programming, but assuming that is done well, you have a very reliable system.

Tom

 

Car designers gave us the Ford Pinto, the Suzuki Rollover, and the AMC... well, anything AMC ever made.

Computer programmers gave us Windows ME, Clippy, and the Blue Screen of Death.

I hope that answers your question.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 29 2006, 10:50 PM) [snapback]355542[/snapback]</div>

The old joke about "if architects built buildings the way programmers wrote software, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization" is way too true.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Nov 29 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]355545[/snapback]</div>

Architects don't build anything - they design things and the builders build them, sometimes correcting the mistakes and omissions of architects.

 

Pick whatever software you want to "prove your point"... i say they're examples of bad procedures and testing.

The software i work on is 100% unit tested (that means every single component of the software is fully tested for every possible input). There simply are no software failures in our products. The hardware has failed (and caused us a ton of headaches over the past few years), but the software hasn't - in fact, many times we're able to issue a software patch to fix a hardware problem.

Another major difference: viruses. The equivalent would be street gangs running around, popping your hood, and beating your engine with a baseball bat every week or so. I'm gonna assume that doesn't happen. It's possible to write a perfectly good piece of software, have it 100% tested, and yet have someone else write another piece of software that is capable of making yours do something it wasn't intended to do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxo @ Nov 30 2006, 05:35 AM) [snapback]355613[/snapback]</div>

Good point. I should have said "builders" or something. You get the idea, though.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 30 2006, 07:33 AM) [snapback]355662[/snapback]</div>

Off subject but "this" is what Microsoft forgets (or does not want) to do on their products.

 

Yes, well Microsoft is able to get away with it because they're so widely adopted - people and companies don't want to switch because they're afraid of being incompatible.

On the other hand, we're sitting here, knowing that our software is saving people's lives, and any error, no matter how small, could cause it to fail... in addition to that, we've got the FDA breathing down our necks (literally, i think they're just down the hall right now...)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxo @ Nov 30 2006, 06:35 AM) [snapback]355613[/snapback]</div>

...and sometimes adding their own mistakes by changing the design from what the architects and engineers intended.

Tom

 

Computers are more reliable than mechanical things.

Software is not. ;-)

If it's any consolation to you, any modern automobile is full of software, software that may be as complex as the Prius software, albeit in different ways.

The biggest risk regarding the Prius software is that it is much newer than software used in traditional powertrains. Therefore, known "robust code" can't be reused as often from previous generation powertrain control systems.

However, the Prius is quite mature, and the odds of finding new bugs in the software grow slimmer every day. It appears at this point that most of the software issues have been hashed out; also, the hardware and platform haven't changed much, so coding effort can go into perfecting the existing software, rather than obsoleting the existing software.

P.S. The Prius doesn't run Microsoft, so the ME, clippy, and BSOD quip above doesn't apply.

Nate

 

With regards to Microsoft, you also have to consider their software has to run on all sorts of different hardware configurations (not so with automotive SW), and with all sorts of other software and drivers NOT written by MS (again, not so with automotive SW....yet).
I'm not trying to defend MS as being faultless, I'm just saying it isn't always their fault.

 

I deleted my answer. it was the most uninteresting answer I've ever seen. Wish I knew how to delete the post.

 

Well, isn't one of the differences between computer software and mechanical components is that mechanical stuff eventually wears out and stops working, whereas software that is working properly to begin with will keep working indefinitely until some other factor is introduced, such as an incompatible instruction, a virus, or the hardware breaking down?

 

Embedded programming by and large is a *far* cry from your typical
general-purpose OS that allows people to click on nasty stuff in
their email. However, some of the embedded stuff is starting to
be built on OS-level environments using hastily-prouced libraries,
so there's no reason to let one's guard down. Cellphones can get
viruses now, for example, and bluetooth "security" is a total joke.
So while ECU design has come a long way since, oh, 1980-ish and is
now one of the least likely components in the car to fail [despite
being frequently suspect...], it's the HUMAN factor with regard to
how the code is written that will cause all the problems.
.
_H*

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LongRun @ Nov 29 2006, 04:58 PM) [snapback]355407[/snapback]</div>

Just as an F-117 pilot. I believe its mechanical aerodynamics have earned it the nickname of the Flying Brick. And yet, thanks to computers, the kinks are worked out well enough that it actually does fly. :lol: