> Wanted something that teaches the rigour behind certified systems without requiring a decade of on-the-job learning first.
I've built certified systems (munitions), and the pain of certification is almost always in the process not the coding.
The process is expensive, rigorous and lengthy. It's the process that certifies something good enough to get the stamp for release, not the code design or architecture.
csb6 9 hours ago [-]
I like the approach; it reminds me of Towards Zero Defect Programming by Allan Stavely and Dijkstra's idea of deriving programs mechanically from their specifications.
Were LLMs used to produce some of the writing? Not sure how to describe it, but it has a certain recognizable writing style (e.g. "The Problem"/"The Solution", lots of bulleted lists with bolded first words, etc.) Readers might appreciate if AI use is disclosed.
glouwbug 1 hours ago [-]
Given they have 30 years of what looks to be safety critical UNIX experience, it’s probably not AI. They might come from rigorous fields like medical device engineering where writing and design are continuously audited for spec and standard conformance
mfro 1 hours ago [-]
It’s definitely AI generated. I suspect much of their portfolio is. See spec.md. Also, the committer’s username is “williamofai”.
BiraIgnacio 1 hours ago [-]
Great content and approach, thank you!
Rendered at 15:34:34 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I've built certified systems (munitions), and the pain of certification is almost always in the process not the coding.
The process is expensive, rigorous and lengthy. It's the process that certifies something good enough to get the stamp for release, not the code design or architecture.
Were LLMs used to produce some of the writing? Not sure how to describe it, but it has a certain recognizable writing style (e.g. "The Problem"/"The Solution", lots of bulleted lists with bolded first words, etc.) Readers might appreciate if AI use is disclosed.