> We have to follow some ISO norms that contain some sensible rules. For example, code reviews are mandatory, we need to have 100% test coverage, the person who writes the tests must be different from the person who writes the code etc.
The exact same thing happens in the car industry.
> I assume the car industry has a similar set of rules and the problem is not a lack of rules, but a lack of enforcement.
Bingo! Right now I'm staring at some ECU code(not safety relevant, thankfully) that looks like it's been written by a monkey, but I'm a new addition to the team, have no authority here yet and we have to ship it like yesterday.
Guess what will happen.
Truth be told, for safety relevant applications, I've seen the code and it's quite good. And the issue in this case is not that the software was badly built, it's that it was built with deceit on their mind.
What parts of the running of an automobile engine aren't safety relevant?
Sounds like "oh we made the stock for that shotgun from cheap, brittle plastic as the stock isn't safety relevant; how were we to know that it would crack and embed itself in someones shoulder?".
You're right that the primary issue here is deceit but the issue of closed source code in such systems is how that deceit was possible [edit, should probably say "facilitated that deceit" as the deceit would still be possible, just harder and move discoverable with open source]; and that leads to questions of safety as if companies will screw over the environment against the democratic legislation then they're unlikely to be mindful of other morally negative consequences.
When you have an organizational culture that places meeting deadlines without sufficient planning or resourcing above quality and safety ... the result is inevitable.
The exact same thing happens in the car industry.
> I assume the car industry has a similar set of rules and the problem is not a lack of rules, but a lack of enforcement.
Bingo! Right now I'm staring at some ECU code(not safety relevant, thankfully) that looks like it's been written by a monkey, but I'm a new addition to the team, have no authority here yet and we have to ship it like yesterday.
Guess what will happen.
Truth be told, for safety relevant applications, I've seen the code and it's quite good. And the issue in this case is not that the software was badly built, it's that it was built with deceit on their mind.