Fast-forward 20 years, a plane crashes, they find and open the black box and in the flight logs they can see the cause clearly:
"undefined is not a function".
"undefined is not a function".
Also, for something as important as an aircraft, I'd prefer to have a developer who knows what a seg fault is writing the code for any aviation equipment over someone who thinks "'undefined' is not a function" is equivalent to a seg fault.
Don't get me wrong though, I don't think that using JS in a plane is a bad idea. In fact I think the aviation industry is extremely slow moving and it frustrates me, fortunately the experimental category has access to some interesting tools but for certified aircraft you're very restricted in what you can and cannot do to modify the aircraft.
I'm not sure I understand this. Can't you get a backtrace out of a JavaScript exception just as well as you can get one out of a segfault? The segfault itself doesn't carry any information other than at best the faulting instruction and the nature of the fault, and you can surely get that out of a JavaScript exception.
Furthermore, a segfault is very often a sign of memory corruption that has already happened, possibly in the stack frames themselves. "undefined is not a function" is not. JS code that crashes with that error is in a much more debuggable state than native code that crashes with a segfault. And you can certainly configure your interpreter to take a coredump on an uncaught JS exception, which will definitely be more debuggable than a coredump post-memory corruption.
(Your personal attack is not an argument.)
To clarify what I was trying to convey, the issue I personally find is that JS errors often produce difficult to understand descriptions and misleading traces when compared to some alternative languages.
I do believe that there is good work being done to convert these errors into more usable alternatives. Just recently I caught a glimpse of this: https://plus.google.com/+AddyOsmani/posts/DdWkiKsvbA2
Segmentation faults can also be very cryptic, especially in the memory related cases like you suggested, but its likely that any tool would behave in fairly unpredictable ways when it comes to any form of corruption or out of memory scenario.
Sorry again and hopefully that clarifies my thoughts.
Get off your high horse. What a ridiculous and ignorant comment.
What makes the joke relevant to the discussion is that this is the first thought on lots of people's mind: "gee, I hope they don't ever use it for the actual flying system".
It sure was the first thought I had, even before seeing the parent's joke.
That's the second thought for me. The first was "thank goodness the airline I'm flying intercontinental with next week uses Boeing planes at that route".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...
What's remarkable about HN is that most jokes are heavily voted down with responses like "go back to reddit", and jokers regularly complain that HN has no sense of humor. And yet every now and then a joke gets voted to the top. I've yet to wrap my mind around this phenomenon, personally...
People overestimate how different they are from the average person all the time, but regression to the mean is a thing. That's how we get a general culture (in the broad sense) -- even if there are subcultures within it.
Besides, how diverse is HN? If anything it's one of the more targeted communities -- most people here already are focused in programming and startups, and have a same-ish background even when from different countries. Contrast with something like YouTube or Reddit (general channels), where people are from all walks of life.
If 9gag, which also gets people from all around the world and with all kinds of interests and ages, can develop a "cumulative sense of humor" (and it has) then surely HN can too. This doesn't mean that everyone on HN will agree on some funny thing -- just that a large percentage will.
Someone deduced that it was the time that the comment was created that mattered. If a large number of jokesters are on at one point then their up votes will create the critical mass to push the comment to the top and keep it there.
I also believe that once a post is at the top fewer people will downvote it, either because they are afraid to go against popular opinion or merely respect it and leave it as it is.
"the crash was generally believed to have been caused by faulty wiring in the cockpit after the entertainment system in the plane started to overheat"
It's not too far fetched to think you could end up with an infinite loop (or other random issue) in some inflight entertainment system code, causing it to overhead and potentially ignite. I'm sure there are plenty of safeguards, but they too could fail...and this is why we still have circuit breakers and a master switch in planes that a human can control. Sadly humans too can (and often do...) fail to make the right decision.
Any system other than flight surfaces, avionics and the source of propulsion to an aircraft add some degree of risk that we could otherwise fly without.
Edits: Spelling and general sillyness.
Often when you review critical failures you find multiple things went wrong at once to cause the catastrophic failure. I would place a good bet that there was a failed fan, poorly secured heatsink or maybe just a clogged air filter that meant the hardware was unable to handle the additional heat being produced.
I know it's a joke, but still: the in-flight entertainment system doesn't log to the flight data recorder.