Safety-Critical Software Standards

their tech is not ready for release.Sounds like a typical software development effort. we always used to say that if we built bridges the way we write software, there wouldn't be many bridges. Well, now we build cars the way we build software, and guess what is happening...I firmly believe that this is all safety critical code, and we should look to NASA to ask how its done:<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_10:_Rules_for_Developing_Safet

AFAIK it's similar to the processes for avionics software, but with even more attention to detail. This link came up recently on HN in reference to avionics:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B

Software contractor for Airbus and Rolls-royce here.All safety critical software (every piece of code ran on-board is safety critical the least) in aerospace needs to pass the DO-178 standard [1].That is far more serious than standard unit tests you are used to in node.js applications. Generally speaking, to develop a piece of code under that standard it takes 20% of time to write the code, and 80% to testing, and enormous amount of documentation (that is optimistic estimation, usually wor

Yes, it's not an industry problem, it's just that most software isn't critical. When software is critical, it's also handled differently. I worked on critical car software, where a bug is expected to cause a safety hazard, and can lead to a car crash. The development process is completely different from some non-critical web service. FMEA analysis, breaking down the software into ASIL levels per component so some components get the very thorough ISO 26262 procedures, every co

Probably this: “DO-178B, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification”https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B

Why should software be any different from aircraft?

Probably. But there are a lot of constraints and requirements on the software development process for aircraft and other critical applications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B

Money. Time helps.Creating reliable software-intensive systems is something we know how to do, we have repeatedly done it in the past, and we are doing in the present. Only problems are it ain't cheap in terms of money or time, so to be cost effective, the costs associated with failure or malfunction must be high.Safety critical systems (where human health can be endangered by system failures and malfunctions) are one such system. They're usually developed under some sort of r

Some interesting info on developing software that's required to meet certifications to be safe for use in flight hardware.

Depends what kind of software you write. Wouldn't want to get into an aircraft that has software written to those standards.