Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #18083 > unrolled thread

[Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-31 11:43 +0000
    Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-05-31 22:14 +1000
      Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-31 14:41 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2019-05-31 20:16 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-06-02 00:22 +0100
          Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-06-02 11:58 +0100
      Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2019-05-31 18:08 +0100
        Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-06-01 12:47 +1000
          Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-01 20:29 +0000
            Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail) RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2019-06-02 16:30 +0000
              Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-02 23:17 +0000
                Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail) Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-04 00:02 +0000
                  Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail) Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-06-04 18:43 +0100
                    Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is   Doomed to Fail) Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-04 21:55 +0100
                      Re: Driverless cars not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-06-04 22:57 +0000
                        Re: Driverless cars Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-06-05 11:53 +0000
                          Re: Driverless cars Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-06-05 15:52 +0000
                            Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-05 16:28 +0000
                              Re: Driverless cars not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-06-05 23:10 +0000
                              Re: Driverless cars Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-06-05 23:47 +0000
                            Re: Driverless cars The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-06-05 20:06 -0700
                              Re: Driverless cars Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-06-06 08:55 +0000
                                Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-06 12:39 +0100
                                  Re: Driverless cars Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-06-06 16:51 +0000
                                    Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-06 20:35 +0000
                                      Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-06 23:39 +0200
                                      Re: Driverless cars Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-06-07 08:17 +0000
                                      Re: Driverless cars Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2019-06-07 09:39 +0100
                                    Re: Driverless cars Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-06-07 00:26 +0000
                                      Re: Driverless cars kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2019-06-07 18:08 -0400
                                        Re: Driverless cars not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-06-07 23:50 +0000
                                Re: Driverless cars The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-06-06 13:51 -0700
                                  Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-06 23:39 +0200
                                  Re: Driverless cars Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-06-06 21:50 +0000
                          Re: Driverless cars Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2019-06-05 16:28 +0000
                            Re: Driverless cars Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-06-05 16:58 -0300
                            Re: Driverless cars Stephen Hall <s__hall@gmail.com> - 2019-06-08 19:17 +0000
                              Re: Driverless cars Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-06-09 09:49 +0000
      Re: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-06-02 00:14 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#18083 — [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail

      ####################################################################
      # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
      # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
      ####################################################################

<URL:https://architectofworlds.com/blog/why-codeless-software-doomed-fai
l/>

The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>
>  Every couple of years, the hope surfaces that a simple graphical
>  interface will replace teams of developers. Business people to quickly
>  and easily create beautiful expressions of their ideas and launch them
>  into production seamlessly. A handful of startups in every generation
>  take up this challenge, and they mostly fail.
>
>  Why do people keep trying to breathe life into a solution that is so
>  obviously doomed to fail is an interesting question, but a more useful
>  question would be why is it doomed to fail, and what are the
>  alternatives.
>
>  The reason why companies keep trying to create canvas driven development
>  tools has 2 components. The first is that as a software engineer, you
>  learn to map out your ideas in some visual representation. These simple
>  flow charts, UML diagrams, or high fidelity mockups then have to be
>  translated to code that a computer can interpret. During the design
>  phase the process feels really smooth, you clarify your thoughts and
>  produce a lot of value in a relatively short amount of time, if only the
>  actual coding could be this frictionless. The second reason is that
>  working with developers can be frustrating. Business people often have
>  to contend with neverending lists of constraints in terms of what the
>  "system" can and cannot do, or constant excuses for why deadlines were
>  not met because of some unforeseen technical difficulty. Surely there
>  has to be a better way. Where these two motivations meet, a business
>  idea is born: "Let's create a tool that makes building software as easy
>  as drawing up a flow diagram!"
>
>  ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#18084

On 31/05/2019 9:43 pm, Rich wrote:
> https://architectofworlds.com/blog/why-codeless-software-doomed-fai
> l/

Perhaps some of the older readers here remember "The Last One" and the 
hype surrounding it, which the computing press swallowed hook line and 
sinker.

Where is it now?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18087

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
> On 31/05/2019 9:43 pm, Rich wrote:
>> https://architectofworlds.com/blog/why-codeless-software-doomed-fai
>> l/
> 
> Perhaps some of the older readers here remember "The Last One" and the 
> hype surrounding it, which the computing press swallowed hook line and 
> sinker.

As the article did mention, this comes up periodically.  I remember 
articles in Byte in the 80's espousing how this was going to 
'revolutionize' things.

And there was one company in the electronics/circuit design arena that 
had a commerical product in the early 90's that had this kind of 
"visual programming" that had some success in their niche.  But it had 
that success only because of the narrow focus (electrical circuits and 
later some amount of digital signal processing).

But the closest we have really gotten to "non-programmer business person 
writes a program" is the spreadsheet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18089

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>> On 31/05/2019 9:43 pm, Rich wrote:
>>> https://architectofworlds.com/blog/why-codeless-software-doomed-fai
>>> l/
>> 
>> Perhaps some of the older readers here remember "The Last One" and the 
>> hype surrounding it, which the computing press swallowed hook line and 
>> sinker.
> 
> As the article did mention, this comes up periodically.  I remember 
> articles in Byte in the 80's espousing how this was going to 
> 'revolutionize' things.
> 
> And there was one company in the electronics/circuit design arena that 
> had a commerical product in the early 90's that had this kind of 
> "visual programming" that had some success in their niche.  But it had 
> that success only because of the narrow focus (electrical circuits and 
> later some amount of digital signal processing).
> 
> But the closest we have really gotten to "non-programmer business person 
> writes a program" is the spreadsheet.
> 
Even older: 4th generation languages were supposed to let business
people write their own software (as was COBOL). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18094

On 31/05/2019 15:41, Rich wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>> On 31/05/2019 9:43 pm, Rich wrote:
>>> https://architectofworlds.com/blog/why-codeless-software-doomed-fai
>>> l/
>>
>> Perhaps some of the older readers here remember "The Last One" and the
>> hype surrounding it, which the computing press swallowed hook line and
>> sinker.
> 
> As the article did mention, this comes up periodically.  I remember
> articles in Byte in the 80's espousing how this was going to
> 'revolutionize' things.
> 
> And there was one company in the electronics/circuit design arena that
> had a commerical product in the early 90's that had this kind of
> "visual programming" that had some success in their niche.  But it had
> that success only because of the narrow focus (electrical circuits and
> later some amount of digital signal processing).
> 
> But the closest we have really gotten to "non-programmer business person
> writes a program" is the spreadsheet.
> 

I saw a demo of a code generator product that took input from user-drawn 
flow charts. It was pretty neat: when you inserted a new node or step 
into the flow-chart, the screen cleverly re-drew only the bits that had 
changed (or maybe it just looked like that!). Anyway, I thought that it 
would soon become the norm.

Needless to say it sank without a trace.

-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18095

On 02/06/2019 00:22, Bruce Horrocks wrote:

> I saw a demo of a code generator product that took input from user-drawn 
> flow charts. It was pretty neat: when you inserted a new node or step 
> into the flow-chart, the screen cleverly re-drew only the bits that had 
> changed (or maybe it just looked like that!). Anyway, I thought that it 
> would soon become the norm.
> 
> Needless to say it sank without a trace.

D'oh. Meant to say that this was in 1987.


-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18088

On 31/05/2019 13:14, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/05/2019 9:43 pm, Rich wrote:
>> https://architectofworlds.com/blog/why-codeless-software-doomed-fai
>> l/
>
> Perhaps some of the older readers here remember "The Last One" and the
> hype surrounding it, which the computing press swallowed hook line and
> sinker.
>
> Where is it now?
>
> Sylvia.
The Last One... ah, a blast from the past there.

I feel much the same about self-driving cars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18090

On 1/06/2019 3:08 am, mm0fmf wrote:

> I feel much the same about self-driving cars.
> 

I'm really hoping they'll come to fruition before I'm too old/infirm to 
hold a licence. Hoping, yes. Believing, no.

Videos of Tesla's efforts show that there's still a long way to go. The 
easy bits are easy enough, but the difficult bits may yet prove to be 
intractable.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18091 — Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail)

In article <gle79gFfn63U1@mid.individual.net>,
Sylvia Else  <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>On 1/06/2019 3:08 am, mm0fmf wrote:
>
>> I feel much the same about self-driving cars.
>> 
>
>I'm really hoping they'll come to fruition before I'm too old/infirm to 
>hold a licence. Hoping, yes. Believing, no.
>
>Videos of Tesla's efforts show that there's still a long way to go. The 
>easy bits are easy enough, but the difficult bits may yet prove to be 
>intractable.

The really hard part is going to be the transition period where both kinds
of cars have to share the same roadways.

Really, they should build all new roads for the driverless cars.

-- 
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long.  As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs.  In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
	http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/IceCream

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18097 — Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail)

On 2019-06-01, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> In article <gle79gFfn63U1@mid.individual.net>,
> The really hard part is going to be the transition period where both kinds
> of cars have to share the same roadways.
>
> Really, they should build all new roads for the driverless cars.

Yeah, the mix of driverless and driverful is going to be tough.
Automated cars will have predictable and known algorithms - and if the
car world is anything like the computer world, eventually one company's
algorithm will eventually prevail in marketshare like the Chrome browser
has.  Human drivers, meanwhile, can't be relied upon to do anything
rational at all.

Meanwhile the "they" in "they should build roads" dooms the rest of the
sentence.  In America at least we seem unable to even maintain the roads
and bridges we've got.  No money, it seems!  Too bad we spent it all on
supporting 'democracy' in fucking Afghanistan - what a collossal waste
of cash no American government has yet been held accountable for, and
Afghanistan remains a version of the shithole it has always been, ready
to collapse into an archipelago of warlord-run drug states the second
the foreign militaries leave.

Sorry for the divergent conversation, now back to cars:  how about a
dedicated driverless lane, much the way in America we were able to build
out HOV lanes, which in fact would provide the lower-traffic, dedicated
alternative we'd need on the highway (no luck in villages/cities
though).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18103 — Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail)

In article <qd0tjf$nlr$1@solani.org>, RS Wood  <randy@therandymon.com> wrote:
...
>Yeah, the mix of driverless and driverful is going to be tough.
>Automated cars will have predictable and known algorithms - and if the
>car world is anything like the computer world, eventually one company's
>algorithm will eventually prevail in marketshare like the Chrome browser
>has.  Human drivers, meanwhile, can't be relied upon to do anything
>rational at all.

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I can see how it plays well as a Usenet
post.

But, here's one thing.  It is my understanding that driverless tech, at
least for the forseeable future, is limited in speed.  That is, it may be
great in all the ways you mention (and allude to), but the fact is that it
tops at abotu 50 mph (so I've heard).  This means that it is pretty much
useless for freeways - unless you are willing to incur the obvious accident
risk of having somebody other than your grandparents driving down the
freeway at 50.

If so you see what I mean...

-- 
That's the Trump playbook. Every action by Trump or his supporters can
be categorized as one (or more) of:

    outrageous, incompetent, or mentally ill.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18107 — Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail)

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> It is my understanding that driverless tech, at
> least for the forseeable future, is limited in speed.  That is, it may be
> great in all the ways you mention (and allude to), but the fact is that it
> tops at abotu 50 mph (so I've heard). 

It isn’t limited. I was using it today at around 70mph in a motorway. 


Cheers,
Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18108 — Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail)

On 04/06/2019 01:02, Ian McCall wrote:
> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> It is my understanding that driverless tech, at least for the 
>> forseeable future, is limited in speed.  That is, it may be great 
>> in all the ways you mention (and allude to), but the fact is that 
>> it tops at abotu 50 mph (so I've heard).
> 
> It isn’t limited. I was using it today at around 70mph in a 
> motorway.

Lucky for you (and those on the motorway with you).

Compare and contrast with this Reuters report of driverless (as in no 
cab) electric trucks in Sweden which have permission to go on public 
roads in an industrial estate area of Jonkoping.

<https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-einride-autonomous-sweden/driverless-electric-truck-starts-deliveries-on-swedish-public-road-idUKKCN1SL0NC>

 From the article:
> The T-Pod has permission to make short trips - between a warehouse 
> and a terminal - on a public road in an industrial area in
> Jonkoping, central Sweden, at up to 5 km/hr, documents from the
> transport authority show.

Yes, that's right, a whole *5* kilometers per hour!

-- 
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18109 — Re: Driverless cars (Was: [Link Posting] Why Codeless Software is Doomed to Fail)

On 4 Jun 2019, Bruce Horrocks wrote
(in article<4209d32e-2ec7-9880-c4d6-05226e38d3ec@scorecrow.com>):

> On 04/06/2019 01:02, Ian McCall wrote:
> > Kenny McCormack<gazelle@shell.xmission.com>  wrote:
> > > It is my understanding that driverless tech, at least for the
> > > forseeable future, is limited in speed. That is, it may be great
> > > in all the ways you mention (and allude to), but the fact is that
> > > it tops at abotu 50 mph (so I've heard).
> >
> > It isn’t limited. I was using it today at around 70mph in a
> > motorway.
>
> Lucky for you (and those on the motorway with you).

To be honest, I’m more tense with it than without it. I have a 
non-autopilot Tesla that’s in for some work, and my loaner has autopilot. 
Have given it a few goes whilst I have it - I’m honestly much more tense 
watching it than I am just driving myself.

Observations so far from it:
- for my money, it gets way too close to other vehicles particularly on the 
left (for others reading - this the UK, so driving on the left and passing 
vehicles in the lane to the right). It’s particularly not good at this on 
bends - went past a coach in the left and line whilst motorway bent to the 
right, and I just had to take back control as it was getting dangerously 
close to the coach
- bad at cambered or uneven roads - it drifts too close to the left-hand 
lines for me.
- lane changing is a fantastically jerky experience, though it’s better 
than when I first tried it (older software version).
- not ‘helpful’ - so doesn’t realise it should move a little to let 
lane-splitting bikers past, for instance

Those are the downsides. Now the good:
- it does actually work. If you can just trust it a bit, it will drive just 
fine in motorway conditions
- the speed tracking is very good. I actually felt quite comfortable in 
manual steer with the car handling the speeds.
- The emergency avoidance is astounding. Not this time round, but the 
previous time I had a loaner someone got their lanes wrong and pulled out 
very close in front of me and headed the wrong way down the lane with a 
head-on collision on the cards. The car took over instantly and came to a 
stop - I’m honestly not sure if I’d have managed the same.

So right now - it’s interesting stuff. Lots of “hmm” moments still 
about, but it’s pretty interesting.

> Compare and contrast with this Reuters report of driverless (as in no
> cab) electric trucks in Sweden which have permission to go on public
> roads in an industrial estate area of Jonkoping.
>
> <https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-einride-autonomous-sweden/driverless-electr
> ic-truck-starts-deliveries-on-swedish-public-road-idUKKCN1SL0NC>
>
> From the article:
> > The T-Pod has permission to make short trips - between a warehouse
> > and a terminal - on a public road in an industrial area in
> > Jonkoping, central Sweden, at up to 5 km/hr, documents from the
> > transport authority show.
>
> Yes, that's right, a whole *5* kilometers per hour!

Yep - if you look at the limitations I’m describing...there’s no way I 
think literally driverless is ready yet.

Cheers,
Ian

-- 
Checkout the new single Something out There and more, plus the albums Voix 
Sans Voix and Proto, all at:<http://studioicm.com>, stream 
at<https://soundcloud.com/mccalli> and<http://ianmccall.bandcamp.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18110 — Re: Driverless cars

Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
> 
> To be honest, I?m more tense with it than without it. I have a 
> non-autopilot Tesla that?s in for some work, and my loaner has autopilot. 
> Have given it a few goes whilst I have it - I?m honestly much more tense 
> watching it than I am just driving myself.
> 
> Observations so far from it:
> - for my money, it gets way too close to other vehicles particularly on the 
> left (for others reading - this the UK, so driving on the left and passing 
> vehicles in the lane to the right). It?s particularly not good at this on 
> bends - went past a coach in the left and line whilst motorway bent to the 
> right, and I just had to take back control as it was getting dangerously 
> close to the coach
> - bad at cambered or uneven roads - it drifts too close to the left-hand 
> lines for me.

Oh dear, good luck here in Australia. I wonder what happens if you
find a real pothole (which happens on a major highway that I regularly
take).

> - lane changing is a fantastically jerky experience, though it?s better 
> than when I first tried it (older software version).
> - not ?helpful? - so doesn?t realise it should move a little to let 
> lane-splitting bikers past, for instance
> 
> Those are the downsides. Now the good:
> - it does actually work. If you can just trust it a bit, it will drive just 
> fine in motorway conditions
> - the speed tracking is very good. I actually felt quite comfortable in 
> manual steer with the car handling the speeds.

Is that following other cars, or reading speed limits from road
signs (did try to look it up - "speed tracking" might not be an
official term)?

> - The emergency avoidance is astounding. Not this time round, but the 
> previous time I had a loaner someone got their lanes wrong and pulled out 
> very close in front of me and headed the wrong way down the lane with a 
> head-on collision on the cards. The car took over instantly and came to a 
> stop - I?m honestly not sure if I?d have managed the same.

I'm not sure about letting a car decide to come to a hard stop in the
middle of a highway based on its own judgement, but nice to hear that
it worked there.

> So right now - it?s interesting stuff. Lots of ?hmm? moments still 
> about, but it?s pretty interesting.
> 
>> Compare and contrast with this Reuters report of driverless (as in no
>> cab) electric trucks in Sweden which have permission to go on public
>> roads in an industrial estate area of Jonkoping.
>>
>> <https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-einride-autonomous-sweden/driverless-electr
>> ic-truck-starts-deliveries-on-swedish-public-road-idUKKCN1SL0NC>
>>
>> From the article:
>> > The T-Pod has permission to make short trips - between a warehouse
>> > and a terminal - on a public road in an industrial area in
>> > Jonkoping, central Sweden, at up to 5 km/hr, documents from the
>> > transport authority show.
>>
>> Yes, that's right, a whole *5* kilometers per hour!
> 
> Yep - if you look at the limitations I?m describing...there?s no way I 
> think literally driverless is ready yet.

I'm probably misreading the term as it is generally being used, but I
would argue that a car becomes "driverless" as soon as the human
driver ceases to control the car. They are then no longer driving,
and from a practical point of view, more likely to stop paying close
attention to what's happening on the road (once accustomed to the
experience, at least). I interpret cases such as when a Tesla crashed
into roadworks because the automation didn't identify the change of
conditions, as evidence of the human oversight having already been
removed.

No human means plodding along at walking pace, but human who's
probably looking at their phone can be going at highway speeds. It
doesn't seem consistent to me. Although that's comparing between
different countries, and last I heard it's still illegal to take
your hands off the steering wheel while in the driver's seat of a
driving vehicle here in Australia.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18111 — Re: Driverless cars

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
>> - the speed tracking is very good. I actually felt quite comfortable in 
>> manual steer with the car handling the speeds.
> 
> Is that following other cars, or reading speed limits from road
> signs (did try to look it up - "speed tracking" might not be an
> official term)?

I read "speed tracking" as what cars here in the US term "cruise 
control" which is simply "maintain an operator set speed".

Is "speed tracking" something more than just maintaining an operator 
set speed?

>> - The emergency avoidance is astounding. Not this time round, but the 
>> previous time I had a loaner someone got their lanes wrong and pulled out 
>> very close in front of me and headed the wrong way down the lane with a 
>> head-on collision on the cards. The car took over instantly and came to a 
>> stop - I?m honestly not sure if I?d have managed the same.
> 
> I'm not sure about letting a car decide to come to a hard stop in the
> middle of a highway based on its own judgement, but nice to hear that
> it worked there.

The issue here is not, per se., for the car with the auto stop feature.  
It is being rear ended by the driver behind who does not have 
"auto-stop" and can't react fast enough to the 'driverless' car's hard 
stop to themselves stop in time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18112 — Re: Driverless cars

On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:53:44 +0000, Rich wrote:

> I read "speed tracking" as what cars here in the US term "cruise
> control"
> which is simply "maintain an operator set speed".
> 
> Is "speed tracking" something more than just maintaining an operator set
> speed?

For me, it is. My car reads speed limit signs and adjusts the speed 
limiter as appropriate.

It has normal cruise control too.
-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18113 — Re: Driverless cars

Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:53:44 +0000, Rich wrote:
> 
>> I read "speed tracking" as what cars here in the US term "cruise
>> control"
>> which is simply "maintain an operator set speed".
>> 
>> Is "speed tracking" something more than just maintaining an operator set
>> speed?
> 
> For me, it is. My car reads speed limit signs and adjusts the speed 
> limiter as appropriate.
> 
> It has normal cruise control too.

Yes, that’s what I was implying. Also called adaptive cruise control,
though I think the Tesla does a bit more than that. 


Cheers,
Ian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18116 — Re: Driverless cars

Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:
> Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:53:44 +0000, Rich wrote:
>> 
>>> I read "speed tracking" as what cars here in the US term "cruise
>>> control"
>>> which is simply "maintain an operator set speed".
>>> 
>>> Is "speed tracking" something more than just maintaining an operator set
>>> speed?
>> 
>> For me, it is. My car reads speed limit signs and adjusts the speed 
>> limiter as appropriate.
>> 
>> It has normal cruise control too.
> 
> Yes, that?s what I was implying. Also called adaptive cruise control,
> though I think the Tesla does a bit more than that. 

According to Wikipedia, "adaptive cruise control" is what I meant by
"follows car in front", in that it uses radar/lidar/magic to identify
the speed of the car in front and automatically maintain a certain
distance behind them. One person who's car has such a feature told me
that all of the available distances were too close for his liking -
which means that they would certainly be too close for me (I tend to
allow lots of space ahead, which usually causes others to overtake
and fill said space, requiring me to slow down to regain adeqate
separation, which causes another car to overtake... Better than
crashing when the Tesla in front slams on the brakes because it sees
a rubbish bag blow in front of it or something though).

Wikipedia's "Tesla Autopilot" page does have a short section on
"Speed Assist" which reads road signs and displays the limit on
the dash - I guess it must be integrated into the cruise control
now as well. I don't have much faith in the backup GPS mapped
speed identification though - according to some GPS systems a
nearby intersection is the centre of a "town area" with a
corresponding unsignposted 50Km/hr limit. Admittedly there is
the occasional four-legged woolly pedestrian going for a stroll
out of their paddock, and last year they actually put up give-way
signs there (one's blown over already), but I don't think it quite
counts as a town.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_cruise_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18117 — Re: Driverless cars

On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 16:28:57 +0000, Ian McCall wrote:

> Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:53:44 +0000, Rich wrote:
>> 
>>> I read "speed tracking" as what cars here in the US term "cruise
>>> control"
>>> which is simply "maintain an operator set speed".
>>> 
>>> Is "speed tracking" something more than just maintaining an operator
>>> set speed?
>> 
>> For me, it is. My car reads speed limit signs and adjusts the speed
>> limiter as appropriate.
>> 
>> It has normal cruise control too.
> 
> Yes, that’s what I was implying. Also called adaptive cruise control,
> though I think the Tesla does a bit more than that.

No, it's not adaptive cruise control.

On my car, the cruise control maintains a preset speed. Just that.

The speed limiter auto adjusts according to posted speed limits. The 
actual speed depends on what I do with the accelerator and gears.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web