In my personal life I write software for the manufacturing industry. Professionally, I am an engineer, and write code for computer-operated equipment (lathes and mills, commonly known as CNC machines.)
For a sense of scale, let me say that most CNC programs are under 250 lines of code. In addition to controlling the cutting tools, the programs will check for operator input mistakes: Tools can only be adjusted within a narrow range, anything outside that range and the machine won't run. Did the operator slow it down to check something and forget to turn it back to 100%? Machine won't run. And so on. Idiot-proofing, dimensional checks and feedback, torque monitoring, etc.
Before we even let the customer see their new machine, we have already run the machine for 8 hours of hands-off auto cycling of the program. We have also run each cutting tool through enough parts to ensure the cutting conditions are optimal. Then for the customer we run an additional hands-off production run of 8 hours or 35 pieces (whichever is greater) and then do a 100% inspection of every feature out to 5 decimal places, followed by some statistical analysis to measure capability. Once the customer is happy, we ship the machine and repeat this on their floor. Then we spend a few days going over the statistical analysis, then a week of training for their operators. Only then is it ready for producing parts that make sure your car door latches with 18lbs of force rather than 19lbs.
Oh, yeah... we provide the computer code to the customer as well, every line commented for clarity.
Doesn't it seem like voting software, which likely is thousands of lines of code, should be made open-source and go through some sort of approval process before being used for real? Isn't this software vetted or tested or examined at all?
-+Edit+- I should clarify... I am not claiming that voting software and CNC programs are similar in architecture, language, layout, complexity, or structure. My point is, if a fairly simple g-code program and its performance is vetted so thoroughly by the end user, at multiple points in its development and prove out, then why in the hell isn't the software that determines how my vote is recorded given the same level of scrutiny? I didn't realize my example was too convoluted for so many snowflakes.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Noctis_Labyrinthus 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
For a second I thought you were trying to claim you are a machinist who writes G-Code. I was about to light into you saying G-Code is not the same things as a software engineer who writes code to interface with specific API's or board level IC's at the bit level.
However it sounds like you are, for a lack of better terms, writing the brains for the machine that uses G-code inputs.
Glad you're here
[–] screamingrubberband [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Thx. I generally only get as far as "Well, with G code..." before getting blasted that "Oh so you don't know what you're talking about" when in reality, most of the (computer) code strategies in most languages can also be used in G code, but very few people use available functions to do that. It allows some really amazing G code programs... When I have more time I may brag about some of my successes. I may be heading to /v/machinists later on today.
[–] Noctis_Labyrinthus 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I might swing by and take a look as well. G-code has always interested me. I have been confined to my C++, java, python, sql bubble for too long.