You are not reading it correctly. It is not code as everyone knows it. It's like an electrical circuit with variable names attached to each conductor, and the code propagates information like electricity would.
There's tools dedicated to this, able to draw pictures of such code circuits (e.g. Simulink, Ascet). And such pictures can be automatically translated into c-code, that looks even worse than anything translated manually.
In the end, of course the tests prove that the code works like the picture of the circuit shows, and therefore the car must work correctly! This avoids the need for anyone working on only the code to understand a car.
In reality, things usually work in the end only because of how simple everything is and high number of iterations.
I think you are referring to something like Ascet. I know it.
I consider that code to be an intermediate representation that I'm not supposed to understand, maintain, or even test.
I’m talking about human written code, meant to be read, maintained, debugged and tested by other humans.
Modeling programs as circuits also makes them significantly easier to formally verify too! These sorts of synthesis tools are really cool, though writing traditional software in them is extremely painful.
You are not reading it correctly. It is not code as everyone knows it. It's like an electrical circuit with variable names attached to each conductor, and the code propagates information like electricity would.
There's tools dedicated to this, able to draw pictures of such code circuits (e.g. Simulink, Ascet). And such pictures can be automatically translated into c-code, that looks even worse than anything translated manually.
In the end, of course the tests prove that the code works like the picture of the circuit shows, and therefore the car must work correctly! This avoids the need for anyone working on only the code to understand a car.
In reality, things usually work in the end only because of how simple everything is and high number of iterations.