Comes up on a regular basis [0], but definitely worth the read if you haven't already done so.<p>[0] <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?query=They%20Write%20the%20Right%20Stuff&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?query=They%20Write%20the%20Right%20S...</a>
As far as I can tell this group was essentially the world's last human-powered compiler. Their job was to translate what was effectively high-level code[1] into assembly language.<p>That's cool and all, but <i>your</i> compiler probably has far <i>lower</i> error rates, definitely has much <i>higher</i> repeatability, runs in seconds instead of... years, and doesn't cost tens of millions of dollars per year.<p>The idea that <i>we</i> should be imitating <i>them</i> is laughable. Automated compilers were light years ahead even at the time.<p>Maybe one day we'll see an article about the high-level code was designed. Probably not though.<p>[1] '"Our requirements are almost pseudo-code," says William R. Pruett, who manages the software project for NASA. "They say, you must do exactly this, do it exactly this way, given this condition and this circumstance."' - they may use words like 'specification' and 'requirements', but generally those terms are indicate documents that tell you what to do, not what to do and how to do it.
This is interesting but I could also write perfect code if I could polish the same process over years and years. In regular business you have to work with unclear requirements and unreasonable deadlines. You simply don't get the time to do a good job.
I love articles on space programs programming, but this one is so condescending to usual computer project/programmers it's not worth reading. It does not mention enourmous amount of resources put into tiny software to get it perfect. As if in the future all the software will be like that.<p>Facts are all right, but tone and ideas in this article are horrible.