Interesting: 10 million lines of software code – more than a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lig


Special K

Special K

GT Owner
Mark IV Lifetime
Aug 23, 2016
1,781
Franklinton, LA
 
Is that a good thing?

I always felt lines of code is a BS metric.

Once a manager of mine asked me how many lines of code have I written. My reply is I didn't have any idea and if he care to count them himself!
 
Lines of code generally doesn't tell you much, just like number of pages in a book doesn't tell you much. Some coders, and some writers, are much more efficient than others. However, it does roughly indicate how complex a program or series of programs are. In my book, complexity is not a good thing. It makes systems more susceptible to unknown behaviors and problems, creates more security holes for exploitation, and makes things overall more fragile. Software for aircraft and military systems is usually much more tightly controlled, carefully designed, and exhaustively tested than what goes into cars, let alone lesser consumer products. I'll bet the software for the F-35 is a LOT tighter and more secure than for automobiles, but does a lot more, with fewer LOC.
 
From a DOS guy that wrote machine language assembly code, and FORTRAN, lines of code can conjure up Windows bloated operating systems that always fail or an awesome performing GT.
 
PeteK said:
Lines of code generally doesn't tell you much, just like number of pages in a book doesn't tell you much. Some coders, and some writers, are much more efficient than others. However, it does roughly indicate how complex a program or series of programs are. In my book, complexity is not a good thing. It makes systems more susceptible to unknown behaviors and problems, creates more security holes for exploitation, and makes things overall more fragile. Software for aircraft and military systems is usually much more tightly controlled, carefully designed, and exhaustively tested than what goes into cars, let alone lesser consumer products. I'll bet the software for the F-35 is a LOT tighter and more secure than for automobiles, but does a lot more, with fewer LOC.
Click to expand...

So true, much more difficult to write efficient code, faster processors result in sloppier code.
 
Complexity, I have found , is never an asset.
I worry about code gremlins, poor grounds etc that may cause a need to 'reboot the car ' to drive it....:(
:(
andy (ajb)
 
Without going into a lot of details, much of the air superiority of the F35 stems from its ability to aggregate a lot of pertinent data that it is getting from other assets in the theater as opposed to the historical on-board-only knowledge. This is why it is so laughable when the media wants to get off on comparing dogfighting attributes of the F35 to previous gen aircraft. The best way to prevail in a dogfight is to shoot the bad guy down before close proximity maneuvers begin.
 
nota4re said:
Without going into a lot of details, much of the air superiority of the F35 stems from its ability to aggregate a lot of pertinent data that it is getting from other assets in the theater as opposed to the historical on-board-only knowledge. This is why it is so laughable when the media wants to get off on comparing dogfighting attributes of the F35 to previous gen aircraft. The best way to prevail in a dogfight is to shoot the bad guy down before close proximity maneuvers begin.
Click to expand...
I heard that story before with the Phantom F4. Its missiles would be able to take out an adversary without them ever getting close. So guns and cannons were not needed.
 
I think Phantom F4' s had an abacus - but no computer.
 
Guns and maneuverability are needed when the code breaks down, either from system overload, system failure ( internally or externally sourced), environmental factors or other factors that would affect the data stream from external sources.
This is why the ATF and ATA can maneuver.
Todays missiles are far superior to what we had 30+ years ago. We had min launch ranges for the various weapons+ launch failures. Guns where usable inside those ranges.
Mark1Mod0 eye ball, guns and maneuvering :) Fun but not normally longevity enhancing.
As Kendall said, Normally engaged maneuvering should not happen.
 
Nafod said:
Guns and maneuverability are needed when the code breaks down, either from system overload, system failure ( internally or externally sourced), environmental factors or other factors that would affect the data stream from external sources.
This is why the ATF and ATA can maneuver.
Todays missiles are far superior to what we had 30+ years ago. We had min launch ranges for the various weapons+ launch failures. Guns where usable inside those ranges.
Mark1Mod0 eye ball, guns and maneuvering :) Fun but not normally longevity enhancing.
As Kendall said, Normally engaged maneuvering should not happen.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Today's combat aircraft are simply delivery and launch platforms for smart weapons. All the software and sensors (the F-35 has a really nice IR sensor system) are there to defend the aircraft from being shot down before it launches its weapons and to feed targeting info into the weapons. The "fighter mafia" still refuses to believe it, but the F-35 is the last generation of manned aircraft. In the next generation those tasks will be done by UAVs or long range autonomous missiles. And that's coming from a former Naval Aviator. The writing's on the wall.
 
Couldn't agree more but still it says a lot of things going on which might be interesting to people not familar with the matter. Today's car do. a hell lot of data processing compared to cars from the 80ies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top Bottom