The analogy does not seem to fit. Of course they built the new bridge before tearing down the old one. There is not really an option to divert traffic, it has to cross the bay.
The Scientist software copies the input and feeds it into two systems in parallel. There is no analogy for that in real life. There is no way to copy cars.
And I really hope they do not actually need to run load tests for bridges after they have been built.
Lot of comments here attacking the analogy. It's just a throwaway analogy. Can we just overlook non-essential parts of the article and discuss the code and techniques instead?
I feel like I am being mislead with a sensationalist article. The tool has already been discussed on HN.
Software engineering is extremely unlike bridges in that bridges get constructed once. Software gets constructed (from source to machine code) every time you build and run it.
The Scientist software copies the input and feeds it into two systems in parallel. There is no analogy for that in real life. There is no way to copy cars.
And I really hope they do not actually need to run load tests for bridges after they have been built.