This is how NASA writes software:
https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff

I want the software driving cars around my family to be held to the a similar standard of quality. In the context of self-driving cars, "Move fast and break things" means "Half-arse it and kill people."

Humans in the USA manage 1.16 fatalities per 100,000,000 miles travelled. Uber's software couldn't even get to 3 million miles before it killed someone.

We do this properly, or not at all.

@ifixcoinops
1.
>one-third of the process of writing software happens before anyone writes a line of code. NASA and the Lockheed Martin group agree in the most minute detail about everything the new code is supposed to do

How's that different from actually writing the code?

>specificity and precision usually found in blueprints

The source code _is_ the blueprint.
Why'd you have 2 versions of blueprints in 2 different languages?

@Wolf480pl @ifixcoinops

> How's that different from actually writing the code?

Actually in a number of ways.

First the human reviews are simpler in a form that is designed for human communication. This could lead to more reviews.

Second the blueprint implementation is a further deep review. It's particularly useful because whenever you find if hard to implement the blueprint or you simply spot something you didn't foresee, you can go back to the drawing board.

@Wolf480pl @ifixcoinops

Also further errors can be spotted by comparing the blueprint and the code.

Also error responsibility becomes easily tracked and accounted and this might increase the care of engineers.

Finally you have several people who understand the system deeply.