| This. Management does not care. Does the market care? In spite of examples like the Therac disaster, the people in charge do not try to learn about what it'd take to make software more truly reliable. In the early part of my career, I (and many of my friends) invested significant amounts of our time learning and pushing PL/T because the way things were going: - Things are toys before they become tools. Early word processors were toys util they replaced typewriters. - As the tools become more important, they will become more mainstream. Requirements will increase, e.g. that they be more reliable, that they become more usable. - We now have designers in tech, indicating that the market cares about usability. - There is still no formal verification of software, just "tests" which are applied in varying degrees of completeness. To rely on "testing" is fine for a lot of consumer applications, but when I briefly worked in medical devices, we used C++. We did not hire a specialist with experience in Coq. Similarly when I worked with medical data. I'll be quite blunt and cynical about it. Don't blame the software "engineers" / developers / whatever you want to call us. One of my friends actually went back to school to do research on this stuff, but I'm pretty sure he made a pittance compared to the friends who worked on the like button at Facebook. The market doesn't care. Call me a software designer if you like, I'll take the fat paycheck after spending the entire early part of my career trying to make things reliable, only to be slotted into the same "tech bro" category by a society that doesn't care. |