> If I laid out our source code for you, there is no way you would have any way to understand it without all the internal documentation from which the software was architected and developed from. Non computer people always have this misconception that if they see the code, they see everything it's doing
This isn't a forum for "non computer people" - I've been a professional embedded developer, hardware and software.
This stance is wrong and terrifying. The code, safety critical code especially, should be clear and should itself document the quirks of whatever it interacts with. Embedded has a culture of punting on abstractions due to the pervasiveness of cross cutting and global concerns (peripheral allocation, interrupt usage, tight latencies, etc), coupled with traditionally smaller code sizes. But we're no longer talking about devices with little memory or cycle by cycle timing, but 32-bit devices with dynamic allocation performing high level logical processing. The embedded culture of fiddling with stateful hacks, verification primarily through system-level testing, and then zipping up the source tree for revision control needs to be burnt at the stake. Leave the bit banging to single-purpose 8 bit micros at the edge that cannot hide actual complexity - the core is a full computer, and needs a proper type system.
I'm not saying this change is going to happen over night, but we should be aiming for the correct approach. Every time a company says that they cannot release code because it is too complex, wouldn't be understandable, have third party dependencies, etc - what they're really saying is that their code base is a sloppy hack, they have no idea how it works, and they really do not want to own up to this state of affairs.
> For me or any company to support someone's quest to understand the code would be a very costly endeavor that you're simply not entitled too or nor would it be a reasonable request.
It might not be desirable according to a company's business interests, but what is actually unreasonable is to force purchasers and users of heavy equipment to blindly trust the software controlling those devices.
The non-computer people comment refers to the folks in the video; not this forum.
You also seem to be conflating right to repair vs. right to inspect code because you feel you have the right to do so for some reason (safety, don't like how it works, etc...). You don't have that right just like you don't have the right to walk into an assembly plant to see how your vehicle is assembled.
"The code, safety critical code especially, should be clear and should itself document the quirks of whatever it interacts with"
Agree and it does and we are audited by a 3rd party trained to looked at code written according to functional safety guidelines (ISO26262). Companies, like mine, don't have resources to respond to folks untrained on such matters. And for the non-safety aspects of the code, that's our intellectual property and our competitive advantage.
"Embedded has a culture of punting on abstractions due to the pervasiveness of cross cutting and global concerns"
You have data or proof of this or are you just talking from your personal experience? I assure you we take safety very seriously. Multiple millions are spent, as I said above, on testing to make sure code performs as expected; especially when a 3rd party audit and billions are on the line and, more importantly, the safety of our customers. You're inspection of the same code simply can't compete with the level of testing & auditing. You're really kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
"but 32-bit devices with dynamic allocation performing high level logical processing"
Certain ASIL ratings dictate thou shall not perform dynamic allocations. You don't appear to be up to speed on functional safety matters.
"unreasonable is to force purchasers and users of heavy equipment to blindly trust the software controlling those devices."
Not true, disagree. It's unreasonable to assume we don't take safety seriously and demand to see our code when you can look at any company's functional safety audit records (they are public). To presume a right to change the code because you're not happy with some aspect of some functionality or you're concerned about safety is not your right and no company has the resources to support these requests from the general customer or public base. Moreover, as I already pointed out, it's our IP.
IP type code in this field is heavily guarded. Swath generation, swath acquisition, path planning are all very interesting algorithms that represent a company's IP.
This isn't a forum for "non computer people" - I've been a professional embedded developer, hardware and software.
This stance is wrong and terrifying. The code, safety critical code especially, should be clear and should itself document the quirks of whatever it interacts with. Embedded has a culture of punting on abstractions due to the pervasiveness of cross cutting and global concerns (peripheral allocation, interrupt usage, tight latencies, etc), coupled with traditionally smaller code sizes. But we're no longer talking about devices with little memory or cycle by cycle timing, but 32-bit devices with dynamic allocation performing high level logical processing. The embedded culture of fiddling with stateful hacks, verification primarily through system-level testing, and then zipping up the source tree for revision control needs to be burnt at the stake. Leave the bit banging to single-purpose 8 bit micros at the edge that cannot hide actual complexity - the core is a full computer, and needs a proper type system.
I'm not saying this change is going to happen over night, but we should be aiming for the correct approach. Every time a company says that they cannot release code because it is too complex, wouldn't be understandable, have third party dependencies, etc - what they're really saying is that their code base is a sloppy hack, they have no idea how it works, and they really do not want to own up to this state of affairs.
> For me or any company to support someone's quest to understand the code would be a very costly endeavor that you're simply not entitled too or nor would it be a reasonable request.
It might not be desirable according to a company's business interests, but what is actually unreasonable is to force purchasers and users of heavy equipment to blindly trust the software controlling those devices.