←back to thread

Has the cost of building software dropped 90%?

(martinalderson.com)
413 points martinald | 6 comments | 08 Dec 25 19:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source | bottom
Show context
vb-8448 ◴[08 Dec 25 22:05 UTC] No.46198283[source]▶
It's not just about "building" ... who is going to maintain all this new sub-par code pushed to production every day?

Who is going to patch all bugs, edge cases and security vulnerabilities?

replies(4): >>46198304 #>>46198394 #>>46198683 #>>46200328 #
soco ◴[08 Dec 25 22:07 UTC] No.46198304[source]▶
The theory goes very simple, you tell the agent to patch the bug. Now the practice though...
replies(2): >>46198353 #>>46198650 #
1. fullstackwife ◴[08 Dec 25 22:13 UTC] No.46198353[source]▶
yeah, in practice: would you like to onboard a Boeing 747 where some of the bugs were patched by some agents,

what is the percentage risk of malfunction you are going to accept as a passenger?

replies(2): >>46198372 #>>46198419 #
2. emodendroket ◴[08 Dec 25 22:15 UTC] No.46198372[source]▶
No. But most software products are nowhere near that sensitive and very few of them are developed with the level of caution and rigor appropriate for a safety-critical component.
3. TuringNYC ◴[08 Dec 25 22:20 UTC] No.46198419[source]▶
>> yeah, in practice: would you like to onboard a Boeing 747 where some of the bugs were patched by some agents,

In this case, the traditional human process hasn't gone well either.

replies(3): >>46198448 #>>46198450 #>>46198512 #
4. dboreham ◴[08 Dec 25 22:22 UTC] No.46198448[source]▶
The bugs were mostly caused by MBAs, who one assumes will remain.
5. geon ◴[08 Dec 25 22:22 UTC] No.46198450[source]▶
It is working great as long as it is adhered to and budgeted.
6. fullstackwife ◴[08 Dec 25 22:28 UTC] No.46198512[source]▶
human process is the understanding that the mistakes will make people die