모든 개발자가 안전하는 사고 방식을 채택 해야하는 이유

In a world where software powers everything from spacecraft to banking systems, the consequences of failure can be devastating. Even minor software failures can have far-reaching consequences—we’ve seen platforms crash, businesses lose millions, and users lose trust, all due to bugs or breakdowns that could have been prevented. Just ask Crowdstrike. This raises an important question: Shouldn’t all developers think about safety, reliability, and trust, even when building apps or services that don’t seem critical?

The answer is a resounding yes. Regardless of what type of software you’re building, adopting the principles of safety-critical software can help you create more reliable, trustworthy, and resilient systems. It’s not about over-engineering; it’s about taking responsibility for what happens when things inevitably go wrong.

The first principle of safety-critical software is that every failure has consequences. In industries like aerospace, medical devices, or automotive, “criticality” is often narrowly defined as failures risking loss of life or major assets. This definition, while appropriate for these fields, overlooks the broader impacts failures can have in other contexts—lost revenue, eroded user trust, or disruptions to daily operations.

Expanding the definition of criticality means recognizing that every system interacts with users, data, or processes in ways that can have cascading effects. Whether the stakes involve safety, financial stability, or user experience, treating all software as potentially high-stakes helps developers build systems that are resilient, reliable, and ready for the unexpected.

Adopting a safety-critical mindset means anticipating failures and understanding their ripple effects. By preparing for breakdowns, developers improve communication, design for robustness, and ultimately deliver systems that users can trust to perform under pressure.

Failure isn’t just possible—it’s inevitable. Every system will eventually encounter some condition it wasn’t explicitly designed for and how it responds to that failure defines whether it causes a major issue or is just a bump in the road.

For safety-critical systems, this means implementing two-fault tolerance, where multiple failures can occur without losing functionality or data. But you don’t need to go that far for everyday software. Simple failover