Posts Tagged ‘ethics’

Programming as Profession

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009 Michael Barr

Doing my daily reading around the embedded systems press, I happened across this gem in an article by Jim Turley:

Programming is often treated as a creative endeavor, undertaken by spirited and talented artistes who cannot or should not be shackled to convention, regulations, or reasonable hygiene. Get over it. Programming is a job like any other, and an employer’s responsibility is to ship a profitable product, not coddle and babysit self-indulgent hackers.

I couldn’t agree with Jim more. It is especially unfortunate when a lack of professionalism shows itself in the realm of embedded systems, such as medical devices, that put human lives at risk. I regret to inform the reader that from Netrino‘s vantage point as consultants we see everyday the train wreck that results from poorly managed and unprofessional programmers working in the embedded systems space.

You need a license from the state to to be a barber. To write embedded software, you simply need to be able to spell ‘C’. But I’m on a mission to change that.

Breathalizer Source Code to Get a Day in Court

Thursday, February 7th, 2008 Michael Barr

Here’s an interesting news story at the intersection of embedded systems and due process:

http://www.news.com/Police-Blotter-Intoxilyzer-code-must-be-disclosed/2100-1030_3-6227951.html

How many potential bugs might a knowledgable expert witness spot in your code? Are the comments in your source accurate and clean enough for a judge or jury to read?

Building Reliable Systems

Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 Michael Barr

I’m writing this live from the Embedded Systems Conference in Boston, while participating in a birds of a feather discussion moderated by Jack Ganssle. The subject of the session is Building Reliable Systems.

The discussion here amongst perhaps 80 engineers (about 75% electrical engineers by education) initially focused on resources and schedules and the inevitability of bugs, but has now turned to what seems to a more productive thread: specific processes and tools that produce higher reliability.

One gentleman, had a great way of summarizing what needs to be done at a high level:

* Prioritization
* Process
* Metrics

In this view, Prioritization is an input to the Process. That is, prioritization of features relative to one another–as well as the accurate definition of properties such as quality and reliability. These are to be provided by the customer or from engineering management. The Process used for design and development and testing are then guided by these input parameters. Metrics are an output of such a Process, if you strive to generate them. Metrics include the schedule time it took to complete specific feature implementations, as well as bug rates.

On the specific point of process and tools, we’ve discovered that just a few companies represented in the room are using code coverage tools and test-driven development, though most appear to agree these might be helpful in raising reliability.

My bottom line fear: One of the products designed by someone in the room with me right now will kill or maim eventually!

Educating Engineers

Friday, September 22nd, 2006 Michael Barr

Engineering is a fast-moving field. Even embedded systems design, which is known to use decades old tools, sees new processors and new peripherals and higher speeds and new languages and new techniques arrive continuously.

Unlike the medical profession, which requires continuing education to keep pace with changes in the knowledge base, engineers generally stop learning formally once they obtain a University degree. There is no such thing as Continuing Engineering Education credits.

Symptoms of the resulting intellectual stasis include not only a failure to keep up with evolving best practices, but also the perpetual desire of businesses to hire younger, freshly-educated engineers whether here or abroad.

If we as engineers are to continue to deliver value commensurate with our growing salaries, we must dedicate ourselves to the kind of perpetual learning required in other professions. Only then will the trend toward the use of more fresh-out and offshore engineers be slowed.

What do you think?

Firmware Code of Ethics

Friday, September 15th, 2006 Michael Barr

WE THE MEMBERS OF THE EMBEDDED SOFTWARE COMMUNITY, in order to protect our customers (and their customers) from the risks inherent in our products, extend product lifetimes, lower long-term maintenance costs, promote the general welfare of society, and advance the integrity and reputation of our profession, do hereby ordain and establish the following code of ethical conduct.

Check return codes. If a function can return an error code, it will almost certainly return one eventually. How will our software recover if it doesn’t even know an error has occurred? We will, therefore, always check all return codes. When an error is detected, we will take whatever action is required to recover safely.

Document reasoning. We make dozens of design and implementation decisions each week; we forget the reasoning behind others at a similar pace. We will, therefore, document all of our reasoning in the code itself. Furthermore, we will update these comments if our reasoning changes.

Use version control. Even when done carefully and with discipline, making backup copies of source directories, commenting out code that might be needed again, and tracking changes in comments is insufficient. The use of a good configuration management tool is a must. Furthermore, we agree to always perform a diff and provide a good description of the explanation for all changes each time a file is checked in.

Enforce coding standards. No matter how proud we may be of our abilities, we do not “own” the code we produce. Our employers and clients own it; we and others are hired to develop and maintain it. The true owners have the right to enforce a coding standard upon our work. If they do not choose to exercise this right, we will self-enforce a standard in line with generally accepted programming practices.

Run lint regularly. Compilers are more concerned with generating code than the correctness of your syntax. Only a static analysis tool like lint can watch over our shoulders to ensure we’re not straying into dangerous or non-portable programming constructs. We will, therefore, include lint in our development process. If we don’t remove all code with warnings, we will at least understand why each and every warning remains.

Perform code inspections. Automated tools are helpful, but nothing is better than a peer review for finding logic errors. Code inspections have been shown to be many times more efficient than any other single debugging tool. We will always review our code as a group at least once before each release.

Assign one tester to every developer. Programmers make lousy testers, especially when it’s their own code they’re testing. For best results, one independent tester should be hired for every developer. And the testing team must maintain and rerun regression tests regularly, to certify that a new release is at least as good as the previous one.

Measure performance. Of course, there are some kinds of tests that are best performed by the engineers themselves. In real-time systems, we shall directly measure interrupt latency and the time it takes each of our critical subroutines to complete. An oscilloscope and a spare I/O pin are quite handy in this regard.

These best practices are easy things to do, and all are inexpensive to implement. A one or two person design team can as easily follow these rules as a 50-person engineering department. If you aren’t following these rules today, there are no excuses for tomorrow.