[nemo44x]

That's really not true. At NASA for example there are standards that need to be followed when designing a system, implementing the code for it, reviewing and testing it, and releasing it. [1]

Yes there will always be bugs but no practice or method is invulnerable to this.

Software in general, in these high risk environments, has been extraordinarily successful in terms of reliability and safety.

[1] https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/software-assurance/2019...

[TwistedWeasel]

At NASA, sure. You can't say that with any certainty for all the other systems in the world where software has a huge impact on daily life and human wellbeing. We can't know for sure because there is no regulation or independent monitoring.

[nemo44x]

Medical tech has similar standards as does flight control and many other mission critical code bases. Static analysis requirements, limits on certain trusted compilers, libs, etc.

I think you may need more time in the field and observing the reality here. There are unbelievably high standards and practices in many places. Maybe CRUD codebases for a consumer website has critical failures but that doesn’t really matter. People will stop using their site if it’s too large a problem.

Software is different than many technical and engineering fields. Codebases change over time as new requirements come in to extend functionality. Things can be patched. When standard engineering practices are required they are implemented. Yes, mistakes happen too but bridges fall down on occasion.

[TwistedWeasel]

The whole point of my last comment was that the impact of bad software cannot be fully understood if we don't have ways to monitor and measure it. You are correct that many industries have high standards and many other industries have no need for any standards as market forces will decide, but there's likely a huge grey area in between that we don't know much about.