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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!news2.volia.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.karotte.org!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
 <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <To_cg.10095$S7.4017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <XVadg.76594$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4e078qF1cb6frU1@individual.net>
 <pan.2006.05.29.13.50.51.330501@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4e0e21F1chamsU1@individual.net>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 16:52:38 +0200
Message-ID: <10qtgfusyium5.1fe6t8kirrzbf$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 May 2006 16:52:34 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79ef9e69.newsread2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=LfQ\[_bk\__40bn3J7ld6QQ5U85hF6f;TjW\KbG]kaMXVA=iV<7g:2UldZnH<\@K:WWRXZ37ga[7ZjTA67ckJ=XU9n3a>^_3:O_
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4583 comp.lang.fortran:10427
Date: 2006-05-29T16:52:34+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 29 May 2006 16:17:06 +0200, Jan Vorbr�ggen wrote:

>> Clearly, Ariane 5's case is not representative of the vast
>> bulk of real-world code.
> 
> Quite to the contrary - almost all of the world's code is in embedded
> systems, Winwoes notwithstanding.
> 
> But I believe you are overinterpreting what I said. What I wanted to say
> is that error detection without corrective action is not the panacea it
> is sometimes made out to be.

I think one should clarify what was an error and what was a bug. Properly
detected, but improperly handled errors are bugs. Bugs cannot be handled.

> In the case of Ariane 501, the correct approach
> IMO would have been to have a test mode (with detection) and a flight mode,
> which turns on the "let's hope and pray" handling of errors and is reserved
> for use only on actual launches.

I don't think so. The problem (bug) wasn't in an inappropriate handling of
an error. It was a false positive in error detection. Handling was correct,
detection was wrong.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de