Gregory's ServerMeanwhile, I'm also quietly lurking on an email discussion about students only learning "proper software engineering" if they go work for a FAANG-like company.
|
9 comments
@alienghic I taught a bunch of Python courses at JPL many years back. Didn't see anyone talking about "FAANG level" software engineering while I was there. On other hand, what I see now is a rover that's still roving about Mars after being there 12 years. So, there's that.  I mean there was the Voyager 1 patch to work around faulty memory as well. But really I think NASA/JPL flight software has a much lower defect rate than most of the rest of us. I don't think most companies software practices really deserve to be called "engineering" yet. Writing low defect software is more expensive and time consuming than just winging it. "Move fast and break things" is not an engineers motto. Also I was thinking of the NASA software reliability handbook https://swehb.nasa.gov/display/SWEHBVC/8.02+-+Software+Reliability  @dabeaz I have feelings about people telling me we should fund research grants because the output benefits FAANG. Even if I considered FAANG to be ethically neutral, they have more money than God. If something benefits them they should pay for it.  |
@dabeaz
I kind of feel like people only learn proper software engineering if they go to work for JPL.