THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Speaker to Animals]

Avionics hardware does not usually beat the latest consumer technology. The same is true for most real-time systems. The hardware running the base stations and site controllers your smartphone data travels through is many years behind the technology of the smartphone itself. Contracts stipulate that a site has to be up 99.99999% of the time (That's a specific number, by the way, which comes out to about only 3 seconds of downtime in a year or millions of dollars in fees come from the manufacturer back to the network provider). An aircraft has many times stricter standards. There can basically be no downtime. Your solid state drive might be great, but you don't want your life to depend on it not locking up on you.

That said, I suspect the experimental and highly classified aircraft run some pretty advanced hardware where it matters, but probably not anything to do with flight controls, navigation, air data computer, etc.

I am sure somebody will try to build a reliable solid state drive that can meet avionics standards, though. It's only a matter of time. But by the time it gets into a major airframe, you will likely be a bit older than now..

[Smitty-48]

On the one hand, the concurrency issue with the program has been a problem, basically, they were too ambitious, but at the same time, concurrency has delivered on many of its intentions, including spiral development, where the technology integration was well ahead of where it would be if they had gone with a linear appoach, everything is a trade off, the fallacy of the concern trolls, is that any of this shit is easy, revolutionary leap in capability costs what it costs, and takes as long as it takes, a Flip Phone would have been cheaper and easier, but it would never have become an iPhone in the end.

If they had gone with a linear development, you would have ended up with MIL-STD 1760 running Ada instead of Power PC duo core running C++

[TheReal_ND]

HDD's in super sonic jets. M8. Are you retarded?

All that aside, I still want to know what to do about the JQ. The Juggalo Question. The FBI classified them as a dangerous gang and I think they were right to do so. The FBI is usually right about such things.

[Speaker to Animals]

On the one hand, the concurrency issue with the program has been a problem, basically, they were too ambitious, but at the same time, concurrency has delivered on many of its intentions, including spiral development, where the technology integration was well ahead of where it would be if they had gone with a linear appoach, everything is a trade off, the fallacy of the concern trolls, is that any of this shit is easy, revolutionary leap in capability costs what it costs, and takes as long as it takes, a Flip Phone would have been cheaper and easier, but it would never have become an iPhone in the end.

LOL

They used concurrent programming in the F-35?

That's not going to go well.

[Smitty-48]

On the one hand, the concurrency issue with the program has been a problem, basically, they were too ambitious, but at the same time, concurrency has delivered on many of its intentions, including spiral development, where the technology integration was well ahead of where it would be if they had gone with a linear appoach, everything is a trade off, the fallacy of the concern trolls, is that any of this shit is easy, revolutionary leap in capability costs what it costs, and takes as long as it takes, a Flip Phone would have been cheaper and easier, but it would never have become an iPhone in the end.

LOL

They used concurrent programming in the F-35?

That's not going to go well.

Concurrency is simply non-linear development, you're designing and building everything at the same time concurrently, instead of one thing at a time and then moving on, the reason it had to be concurrent, is that Congress ordered a revolutionary jet not an evolutionary jet, revolutionary jet needed a whole slew of things to be developed all at once.

Contrary to all the liberal media clickbait caterwauling, the program has actually gone off far better than any of the competitions, far, far ahead of the Europeans and their Eurocanard programs, which started a decade earlier.

[Speaker to Animals]

Real-time systems don't operate the way most of you are used to thinking of computing. It's very structured and organized. They don't use fancy things like concurrent threads and other such features unless they absolutely have to do it. I was a software engineer on plenty of real-time system projects, though not avionics. But it's not totally different, just even stricter.

We used RTOS from companies like Wind River Software. These operating systems are extremely reliable, but you don't have the fancy stuff.

[Okeefenokee]

We consumers just started buying SSD's last year heh. Wait SDD? Whatever dude.

Got my first one about four years ago. They had been around for a couple years already. The ones out now are far and away superior to those. That's an easy piece to upgrade though. I wonder if they're running the new PCI SSDs. I'm looking to get one once they get past the initial release versions.

[Smitty-48]

Real-time systems don't operate the way most of you are used to thinking of computing. It's very structured and organized. They don't use fancy things like concurrent threads and other such features unless they absolutely have to do it. I was a software engineer on plenty of real-time system projects, though not avionics. But it's not totally different, just even stricter.

We used RTOS from companies like Wind River Software. These operating systems are extremely reliable, but you don't have the fancy stuff.

You're talking about something else, that's not what concurrency refers to as relates to the F-35 program; the ICP was developed concurrently to the airframe, engine, sensors, etc

[TheReal_ND]

Yeah and you fucking over payed. They've been a meme for a while now. They are just now starting to be worth the price point.

But srsly. I want to gas the Juggalos.

[Speaker to Animals]

On the one hand, the concurrency issue with the program has been a problem, basically, they were too ambitious, but at the same time, concurrency has delivered on many of its intentions, including spiral development, where the technology integration was well ahead of where it would be if they had gone with a linear appoach, everything is a trade off, the fallacy of the concern trolls, is that any of this shit is easy, revolutionary leap in capability costs what it costs, and takes as long as it takes, a Flip Phone would have been cheaper and easier, but it would never have become an iPhone in the end.

LOL

They used concurrent programming in the F-35?

That's not going to go well.

Concurrency is simply non-linear development, you're designing and building everything at the same time concurrently, instead of one thing at a time and then moving on, the reason it had to be concurrent, is that Congress ordered a revolutionary jet not an evolutionary jet, revolutionary jet needed a whole slew of things to be developed all at once.

That's not what it means in the context of software engineering. Every major project works like you just described. That stuff is dealt with at the process engineering and project management level.

In computer science, concurrency refers to having multiple threads running at the same time (well, not technically the same time on most architecture, but in practical terms it is so). That you can type a reply in your browser while your media player plays music in the background is concurrency.

You want to limit that as much as possible in avionics. You can't escape it, really, but you can manage it by simply having separate computers doing their own thing simultaneously and communicating over a mux bus managed by a central computer.