If you aren't a PE, it's hard to hold you personally responsible unless they can show something close to willful, deliberate misbehavior in the development or testing of a system even in avionics. Just being a bad programmer won't be enough to hold you responsible.
50 years is a long time for a piece of machinery. There will be many failure modes that will be discovered in these planes.
The C-130 was thought to last forever. Until about 10 years ago, well used planes being used for firefighting starting having structural failure in flight. Suddenly, organizations flying the older airframes decided that it was no longer effective to take the risk of failure.
This is much the same reason I'm highly skeptical of Rust as a replacement systems language to C. A multitude of very talented folk have been working on writing a second Rust compiler for years at this point. The simplicity and ease of bootstrapping C on any platform, without any special domain skills, was what made it absolutely killer. The LLVM promise of being easily ported just doesn't hold true. Making an LLVM backend is outrageously complicated in comparison to a rigid, non-optimizing C compiler, and it requires deep knowledge of how LLVM works in the first place.
It does make me wonder about millions and millions of lines of Java out there; Java has more or less eaten the enterprise space (for better or worse), but is there any reason to think that in 30-40 years the only people writing Java will be retirees maintaining old banking systems?
I expect Ada will capture 0.05% of the market for the next 100 years.
COBOL is alive in that it keeps changing from era to era, to the point modern COBOL looks rather little like the 1950s COBOL everyone instinctively thinks about when they heard the term. It's as if we were still programming in Algol because Java had been called Algol-94 or something.
These 'measures' would be much more useful if they were used to determine the control limits of the software process being used.
'hours from pull request to merge' for an open source project is silly. who cares? 'number of commits a month'? who cares. what is the value of those commits.
why the focus on 'constant churn of software'? I don't see it.
Either you give up your IP (drawings and source code) or you are non-compliant.