REVIEW 1 cited by
Principles of Antifragile Software
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
The goal of this paper is to study and define the concept of "antifragile software". For this, I start from Taleb's statement that antifragile systems love errors, and discuss whether traditional software dependability fits into this class. The answer is somewhat negative, although adaptive fault tolerance is antifragile: the system learns something when an error happens, and always imrpoves. Automatic runtime bug fixing is changing the code in response to errors, fault injection in production means injecting errors in business critical software. I claim that both correspond to antifragility. Finally, I hypothesize that antifragile development processes are better at producing antifragile software systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Emergence-as-Code as a Foundation for Self-Governing Reliable Systems
EmaC proposes compiling journey-level reliability goals into conservative availability/latency bounds and rollout gates from intent plus live operational evidence.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.