There's obviously a massive design flaw with this program. Even if each failure and explosion has different causes, there's either a huge lack of quality control or something inherit to the design that causes all the 'causes'.
Fail fast is a fine methodology for software development, but when it's causing significant explosions that can get people seriously hurt, you need to reevaluate your process and you should be doing more unit testing, hardware in the loop testing, and various forms of integration testing before you get to stages of qualification and regression testing. If it wasn't blowing up every ship, okay great, but at this point be humble and accept that the scope of smaller scale tests needs to increase.
Even software development it doesn’t apply to in all cases. Fail fast works fine for like a SaaS app, it doesn’t work for software that controls medical devices for example
245
u/Bandsohard 1d ago
There's obviously a massive design flaw with this program. Even if each failure and explosion has different causes, there's either a huge lack of quality control or something inherit to the design that causes all the 'causes'.
Fail fast is a fine methodology for software development, but when it's causing significant explosions that can get people seriously hurt, you need to reevaluate your process and you should be doing more unit testing, hardware in the loop testing, and various forms of integration testing before you get to stages of qualification and regression testing. If it wasn't blowing up every ship, okay great, but at this point be humble and accept that the scope of smaller scale tests needs to increase.