> In naturerecordists, I, Mike Feldman, wrote:
>> All software is poorly written when it's released...
Mike Eccles wrote:
> Mike, I certainly hope that the flight control system in the latest
> aircraft works properly before either I fly inside it or it flies
> over my head. From my experience, that software is usually well
> written (except when it isn't and the plane doesn't make it past the
> first flight!). The cockpit recordings are usually very interesting
> in those situations ;-)
Good point for safety-critical systems. Such software is,
or ought to be, released to rigorous testing and then released to
"flight" testing before going into "production". For consumer
electronics the flight testing is all too often the end users.
Sound Devices aim at the pro production market, which put them a cut
above consumer electronics, and a couple of cuts below saftey
critical systems.
But then Sound Devices took a whole lot longer to go into production
with the 700 series that say Edirol with the R series, and that
at a .2 price point.
That said, I think SD is doing a pretty good job, and that reminds
me I've still got to reflash my 722, and I'm glad that I can. I
expect to sell my R-1 long before any firmware upgrade arrives.
Oh, and we're not quibbling about "well written" (off topic for
naturerecordists) ... I was just echoing the original poster's
phrase.
> -- Mike (also software engineer, developing safety critical stuff)
-- Mike (software engineer for time-to-market sensitive products)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|