From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.68.180.101 with SMTP id dn5mr14244458pbc.5.1414708634562; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.86.9 with SMTP id o9mr43755qgd.29.1414708634300; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!r10no1999155igi.0!news-out.google.com!u5ni18qab.1!nntp.google.com!i13no138580qae.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=213.108.152.51; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.108.152.51 References: <220f97ab-9aa2-4961-b140-2b271c3ab99a@googlegroups.com> <99759c3f-a35f-4745-a8fd-2fb6ab6fb1aa@googlegroups.com> <48dc1630-8e7d-4e29-8bdd-53d74932d9d0@googlegroups.com> <88a7f98c-55c2-4b5f-8a9d-c8b7512781c8@googlegroups.com> <50cacb19-5d0b-4dbe-b91b-0b3b462913d6@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <07d0ad94-160b-4873-ba1b-403e8c0bc420@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: F-22 ADA Programming From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:37:14 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:22936 Date: 2014-10-30T15:37:14-07:00 List-Id: > It is not about escaping responsibility but come from the other end and t= ry > to be responsible. People are required to be diligent. Choosing the right > platforms, languages, techniques etc. are all part of engineering just li= ke > choosing the right concrete, steel, and designs are are all part of makin= g a > bridge. And yet, among hundreds of available materials and components, architects c= hoose those that are most economically viable in the given context, not the= ones that have the best known parameters. For every bridge or building I w= ould be able to prove that better materials exist - and they were not chose= n for valid reasons. Every single day my life depends on materials that wer= e chosen based on some economic compromises and sometimes that economy argu= ment is passed on us - for example we have to choose what car we will buy t= o drive our kids to school and that decision also involves economy compromi= ses. I bet that nobody on this group bought the best car that was ever crea= ted. Should we feel bad about it? I am not aware of any engineering industry where purely technical arguments= are the only ones that are taken into account. It would be naive to expect= that IT should be any different. > I think that's misleading. It is not only the probability of failures tha= t's > important but their type and consequences. That C++ bugs have more severe consequences than Ada bugs? :-) > The question is whether people acted > responsibly, cautiously, and in good faith. And those are things that mak= e a > difference in court. And I assure you that no programmer in the world selects his tools in bad f= aith (at least I don't know any such wrongdoers). Everybody can swear on th= eir good intentions. That should solve the court problem, right? If I understand things correctly, lack of due diligence has to be proven in= court. But who is responsible if most programmers are simply *not aware* o= f better tools? Nowadays the universities teach that the best language for = everything is Java. Is the Java programmer liable for the broken system or = should we sue his university instead? --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com