In the case of the Toyota/Denso mess, the code in question had both auto-generated and hand-written elements, including places where the autogenerated code had been modified by hand later. That is the worst place to be, where you no longer have whatever structure and/or guarantees the code gen might provide, but you also don't have the structure and choices that a good SWE team would have to develop that level of complexity by hand.

This isn't necessarily a problem if you don't consider the output to be "source" code. Assembly is also garbage spaghetti code but that doesn't stop you from using a compiler does it?

Modern autogenerated C code from Simulink is rather effective. It is neither garbage nor spaghetti, it is just... peculiar.

No I'm not joking at all. The Autocode feature generates code that has high fidelity to the model in simulink, and is immensely more reliable than a human.

It is impossible for a simulink model to accidentally type `i > 0` when they meant `i >= 0`, for example. Any human who tells you they have not made this mistake is a liar.

Unless there was a second uncommanded acceleration problem with Toyotas, my understanding is that it was caused by poor mechanical design of the accelerator pedal that caused it to get stuck on floor mats.

In any case, when we're talking about safety critical control systems like avionics, it's better to abstract away the actual act of typing code into an editor, because it eliminates a potential source of errors. You verify the model at a higher level, and the code is produced in a deterministic manner.

> It was probably the reason for Toyotas unintended acceleration glitch.

Do you have any evidence for "probably"?

Rockets have flown to orbit on auto coded simulink, seen it myself