Edmilsom Carlos

O FUTURO DO ESPAÇO COMEÇA AQUI No dia 4 de abril de 2026, a equipe da POLI-USP lançou o foguete Elara II, em Pirassununga — o primeiro do grupo com propulsão híbrida. O voo não atingiu todos os parâmetros, principalmente pela quantidade de oxidante, que impactou a altitude. Mas o mais importante funcionou: o sistema de recuperação foi acionado com sucesso, o foguete retornou com danos mínimos e os dados foram coletados. A missão validou sistemas essenciais como paraquedas, frenagem e estrutura, após mais de 12 horas de campanha. Eu me lembro dos meus primeiros testes… é assim que se constrói uma missão de verdade: testando, ajustando e evoluindo. Parabéns aos estudantes. É assim que o Brasil avança no espaço. 🚀🇧🇷 Abraços espaciais Astronauta Marcos Pontes Senador do Brasil 🇧🇷👩‍🚀 Faça parte do meu canal do Whatsapp whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va…

@jesusmnavarrol @unclebobmartin @Grady_Booch @wookash_podcast @KentBeck That part I have to agree with you Jesus

@EdmilsomCarlos @unclebobmartin @Grady_Booch @wookash_podcast @KentBeck In fact it is. That's why "repeteable buildings" is a thing. But it's splitting hairs regarding your question, as the resulting binary is effectively the the same "for all the things that matter".

To people who are *good* at reviewing code (or claim to be hehe) - how is that possible? To what extend you can properly review the code with low familiarity with the codebase? Eg. New project, you jump in, Claude Code PR - 500 lines changed - review now What's the strategy?

@unclebobmartin @orbatos @Grady_Booch @wookash_podcast @KentBeck @unclebobmartin - given all this, do you suggest all of us to stop reading/using the practices you documented on Clean Code? Should the new generation of programmers not read that publication at all?

@orbatos @EdmilsomCarlos @Grady_Booch @wookash_podcast @KentBeck I created a suite of gherkin tests that described a relatively simple application. I had four different agents build the app in four different languages. I got four valid executables. I never looked at a line of code.

@allenholub Waterfall strikes back

I really don't get "spec-based development," which is nothing but a fancy way to describe a phase-gated "waterfall." An upfront specification is never correct, at least if our goal is to develop software people actually want to use. The more detailed and larger the spec, the less correct it is. We all learned the hard way that the most effective way to develop a product that people actually want to buy is incrementally, in very small chunks, delivered as frequently as possible to get feedback, and then continuously adjusting what we're building based on that feedback. I suppose you could argue that you can specify each small increment, but even there, it's best to get feedback while we're working, so the spec will be fluid. The irony of the AI stans demanding a full specification up front is that AI actually makes incremental development easier and more effective. We can try out ideas with less effort and get them into customers' hands much faster. In other words, the real advantage of AI-assisted development is that it tightens the feedback loop and enables incremental development. Why would anybody throw away that advantage and revert to a half-century-old way of working that has been proven ineffective? Seems nuts.

@unclebobmartin @vadym_80 x.com/unclebobmartin…

@EdmilsomCarlos @vadym_80 I never said "I don't review". I review plenty -- just not the code. I don't review the code for the same reason that I don't review the binary generated by the compiler. I have learned to trust, within limits, the output of a properly constrained AI.

AIs are just another step up the semantic expression ladder. We initially expressed our semantics in binary, then assembler, then Fortran, then C, then Java, then Python, etc. AI is just the next step up that same old ladder. And when you take that step, nothing else changes. You are still expressing behavioral semantics. You still need to express structural semantics. All the old principles still apply. You still have to be concerned about design and architecture. And even though the syntax allows informal statement, you cannot abandon formalism. When you express behavior you need a formal way to enforce the behavior you want. I use Gherkin for this. It seems to work pretty well. Consider that Gherkin is written in triplets of Given/When/Then. Each of those GWT triplets is a transition of a state machine. A full suite of Gherkin triplets is a formal description of the finite state machine that represents the behavior of the application. Other formalisms that matter are things like module dependency graphs, testing constraints, complexity constraints, and many others. This step up the semantic expression ladder provides you with an enormous amount of options. But you'd better choose those options wisely!

@vadym_80 @unclebobmartin No, not assumptions. I am giving you a probabilistic answer, not a deterministic one

@EdmilsomCarlos @unclebobmartin It seems like you might be making assumptions about what we think regarding engineering, which could be a form of cognitive bias. Unfortunately, I didn’t receive answers to my questions

@vadym_80 @unclebobmartin Accountability and ethics are the answer to all the questions. It is not a matter of being better vs not better, more reliable vs less reliable. Engineering goes beyond typing words. Engineering encompasses things which can’t fit the “I don’t review” mindset

@EdmilsomCarlos @unclebobmartin do you trust it more? Why? Why do you think some John will have enough coding knowledge according to your expectations? why do you think some John has enough knowledge and it is better write in some Python/Java, but not C or assembler?

@unclebobmartin @unclebobmartin what is the number of plane crashes caused by lack of human verification on supposedly faulty binary code ? Bob, Google AI was suggesting us to put white glue to make creamy pasta the other day. Should we only verify the results by eating after cooking it?

Would you fly on an airplane whose navigation software binary was never reviewed by engineers but entirely generated by C compilers? Why? Do you expect that the C compiler has no bugs? Do you expect that the interface between the compiler and the platform is perfect? How could you haven step foot on a plane without knowing that every single bit (binary digit) has been verified through the review of responsible engineers. (And yet I imagine that you do.) In the end nobody depends entirely on reviews. What they depend upon, for mission critical software (or for any software for that matter) is testing. And I am, by God, testing the hell out of the things I have the AIs build for me.

@vadym_80 @unclebobmartin Are you you putting human knowledge and accountability to check?

@EdmilsomCarlos @unclebobmartin Why do you trust some John (you even don’t know) who wrote the code manually?

@unclebobmartin @JeffBohren @Grady_Booch @wookash_podcast @KentBeck I never expected the compiler argument coming from you @unclebobmartin :(

@JeffBohren @Grady_Booch @EdmilsomCarlos @wookash_podcast @KentBeck Do you review every bit of the binary code? After all, you are responsible for it. And it is that binary that is actually executing. Compilers can make all kinds of horrible errors at the binary level. Do you check it?

@unclebobmartin @Grady_Booch @wookash_podcast @KentBeck Can the result of compiler be probabilistic? Given the same input, same computer, same compiler version, language level, sometimes the binary is A and sometimes B?

Do you also read the binary produced by the compiler? In any case, with the right set of tools and metrics issues like dead code, function and module structure, and architecture are manageable without resorting to reading the code. After all, if we must read all the code, then we might as well write all the code.

@hoje_no Palestina joga lixo em Israel?

60 palestinos foram encontrados no interior de um caminhão de lixo tentando entrar clandestinamente em Israel. Todos homens, jovens e em idade militar. Não é muito difícil deduzir a intenção deles. #hojenomundomilitar

@komputernik @Grady_Booch @unclebobmartin @wookash_podcast @KentBeck @komputernik “Agentic Development: Waterfall Strikes Back” seems like a solid book title for me at times too

@Grady_Booch @EdmilsomCarlos @unclebobmartin @wookash_podcast @KentBeck I didn't expect AI to bring back waterfall. But it brought back waterfall.

@unclebobmartin @wookash_podcast @Grady_Booch @KentBeck Thanks @Grady_Booch , I also follow what you pointed out tbh. Things are so upside down these days getting multiple different povs is very helpful. At current state, I do what you pointed out though

@unclebobmartin @wookash_podcast Is this a good practice / common sense nowadays? Would love your opinions @Grady_Booch @KentBeck please

@LewisCTech Also recommend Jerry Weinberg’s readings to your list :)

@LewisCTech Thanks for this. There is much more to be evaluated imo. The emergence of “user” as a concept (~60s). The relationship between SDLC and programming paradigms available. Boehm spiral model. And more, much more to understand why we are where we are - rinsing and repeating.

Goodbye Agile, whatever the hell you were. lewiscampbell.tech/blog/260414.ht…

Líder Supremo da Coreia do Norte, Kim Jong-un, observa o teste de lançamento de mísseis de cruzeiro antinavio a partir de um importante destroier do país. O líder norte-coreano Kim Jong-un supervisionou o teste de lançamento de mísseis de cruzeiro estratégicos e antinavio a partir do destroier Choe Hyon, enfatizando que a principal prioridade do país é fortalecer a dissuasão nuclear "sem limites", informou a mídia estatal nesta terça-feira. Segundo a Agência Central de Notícias da Coreia (KCNA), a Coreia do Norte realizou no domingo o lançamento de dois mísseis de cruzeiro estratégicos e três mísseis antinavio a partir de um destroier naval, em um "teste de eficiência operacional". Em março, a Coreia do Norte realizou testes semelhantes de mísseis de cruzeiro estratégicos a partir do navio de guerra de 5.000 toneladas em duas ocasiões antes de sua entrada em serviço, testes esses também observados por Kim. A referência de Pyongyang a armas "estratégicas" sugere que elas poderiam ter capacidade nuclear. Fonte: YonhapNews