It is the proper procedure, and it does come (in a lot of countries, AFAIK) with a lot of guardrails:
There will be a so-called "train order" allowing passage of a specific section ignoring the safety system warnings, which has strict validity limits both in time and in the area where it applies, usually denoted by specific hectometric mileposts
When cab signaling is involved (LZB is one of these) and it malfunctions, the entire system normally changes to "driving on sight only" - which indeed limits the train to 40, 30, 20, sometimes - 15 km/h (see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marche_%C3%A0_vue) or the line gets switched to lineside signaling - if it is available.
I don't know how you could violate all of those rules - both from the driver's side and from the traffic control side - but it sounds absolutely horrible. Like an override of at least 2 (if not 3) very explicit safety margins.
(The following is speculation:) The issue is that there was still a fallback system operating (ASFA), so they likely assumed that there is still a safety system running, while actually it needed to be ignored, because due to virtual blocks of LZB there is then more than one train in a ASFA block. This means that the next signal shows you "clear", so you accelerate thinking you are back into normal operation, but there is actually a train in front of you, just not in the next block, but in your very own block, which is a situation that is not supposed to happen. So the issue is kind of different train control systems interacting disagreeing with each other. Ironically it would have been actual if there would not have been another safety system, because then they would have known, that they need to operate manually right away.
So they have lineside signaling as backup but it does not have blocks? That looks like misengineering, wow. Some reports said that the renfe train rolled for 25km - if this is what their fallback is like - it is absolutely inexcusable. Oh my...
No, the line based control system is the normally used one, because it is required for high-speed. But both systems are safe on their own. I explained it in more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50298796
> Some reports said that the renfe train rolled for 25km - if this is what their fallback is like - it is absolutely inexcusable. Oh my...
I do not know what you mean with that, and what "rolling" would mean here.
That said: I am not obligated to quote a speech that is freely available for everyone to listen to or to read. I don't know which "comments" exactly I have "distorted", but - on the other hand - this is an opinion piece, not a Reuters ticker report.
Thank you for stopping to read my article and yet mustering the energy to write such a long rebuttal. The point about hexapdf is duly noted, my omission.
I deliberately refrain from the whole DHH racism/faschism/nazism/oligarchy axis because that is not something I would like to convey nor discuss where I post.
You are right that he is primarily a businessman - and a very successful at that, specifically in marketing and creating hype. The very point that I am making though, is that of all the application points he could choose for applying his hype prowess he chose to dunk on the community that got him where he is.
And one of the things I have enjoyed immensely - and I know I am not alone in this - is writing Ruby commercially, also with other people. Simply due to DHH being such an influencing figure - the markets do notice, so whoever already was yelling "Ruby is dead" now gets more ammunition. I do believe this was an absolutely unnecessary, harmful gesture. But hey - it happened.
> And you can also try to convince the hexapdf author to improve hexapdf
The days of spending months to convince anyone of anything like that are largely over, but that deserves another article - and it's not a great phenomenon, even though it produces more artifacts (a lot of them quite good).
True, and there is also Crystal which is - in a few aspects - better than Go even, and has way more pleasant aesthetics.
The way the JVM didn't take off doesn't surprise me because Sun and Oracle have bodged it so bad, and because there were legitimate issues using the JVM when your project was small. I can't shake the feeling that to this day, even the coveted JetBrains products still fill like Swing. Indents are ugly, widgets are ugly, window refresh takes 3-4 refresh frames instead of 0, font rendering is just-not-quite-good-enough... and that does stick.
Also, the Java community was not necessarily receptive to progress - mostly because so much stuff depends on it (including very highly paid, senior carreers). They mostly went "The JVM is great for developing your own toy language, go have at it" but it would always be the-actual-Java interop. For example, my adventures with Clojure ended very abruptly because I simply do not know Java well enough to feel comfortable when I get a NullPointerException.
Which I obviously did get on my second line of REPL input.
If people want to have the OG transcript - they can always find it. I was translating the message he (willingly or not) has sent out to that particular audience, in that particular context.
You received a highly distorted negative version of what he was saying. Another example is the claim 37 Signals "banned" hand coding. What he said is they went AI first, and that hand writing was exceptional.
We are going, and have gone, pencils down on the idea that we were gonna write code by hand as a normal course of business creating things. Writing code by hand at 37signals is now an exceptional state.
I think I have received more of what was _not_ said than of what was said. I did watch the entire thing a couple of times just to make sure I haven't missed something. I think this article explains it better https://jardo.dev/what-about-rails
When I was becoming a self-taught software engineer it also was hilarious, no doubt about it - and very inefficient. I did enjoy it and did build some stuff, and not all of it was bad.
So, if anything, if the intent is "I can do it all myself and I will fire you now" - I love to see them stumble, if the intent is "I want to get my hands dirty and let's work together" - I will be happy to assist. It's not a pipe dream: it does happen.
Does the journey have value? When you started learning to code to become a software engineer, you probably reasoned that the journey was important.
If you are an exec building an app then the journey is likely to be uninteresting and an impediment to getting to a product. I don't think we'll uncover anything new here that we couldn't reason about before. When execs, or other non-programmers, do get decide to get involved, there is a probability that they will learn something more about software engineering inside their organization. That is the thing that software engineers need to be concerned about because depending on the circumstances, the execs will uncover things which shorten the tenure of SWEs or their management.
The journey always has value, in retrospect (if you manage to get through in one piece). But - to be honest - if I could have prompted my way to the software I built back then instead of grinding through the bits and bobs - I would have done it.
I can appreciate the internal beauty but getting "a thing that does thing and does it well", and seeing others enjoy using it has way more value for me than "what type system could work more elegantly here".
OP here - no, I am not under pressure to do vibe code for work, I do it willingly (but - IMO - responsibly). And I do not think hand-coding will be sustainable for most tasks simply because it will be very hard to justify in most situations where you work with other people - be it on community basis or commercially. It's hard to say "I have to spend a week doing this by hand" when the next person is expecting you to do this in an afternoon (and rightly so).
I think we should write code by hand from time to time to not lose currency - but it's not the primary nor the default anymore.
There will be a so-called "train order" allowing passage of a specific section ignoring the safety system warnings, which has strict validity limits both in time and in the area where it applies, usually denoted by specific hectometric mileposts
When cab signaling is involved (LZB is one of these) and it malfunctions, the entire system normally changes to "driving on sight only" - which indeed limits the train to 40, 30, 20, sometimes - 15 km/h (see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marche_%C3%A0_vue) or the line gets switched to lineside signaling - if it is available.
I don't know how you could violate all of those rules - both from the driver's side and from the traffic control side - but it sounds absolutely horrible. Like an override of at least 2 (if not 3) very explicit safety margins.
reply