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: 103376,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!feeder.news-service.com!post.news-service.com!news1.surfino.com!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <1879696.zZWdYAhPYH@linux1.krischik.com>
From: Martin Krischik <martin@krischik.com>
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng
Reply-To: martin@krischik.com
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:58:09 +0100
References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
 <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org>
 <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk>
 <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> <d0dacj$rcl$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>
 <13886201.p35jjuWv0U@linux1.krischik.com>
 <422b70a3.1142744850@news.xs4all.nl>
Organization: None
User-Agent: KNode/0.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@surfino.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.169.175.19 (83.169.175.19)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:00:08 +0100
X-Trace: 3da14422c2628f60c0ab605313
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8799 comp.lang.c++:44428
 comp.realtime:1046 comp.software-eng:4583
Date: 2005-03-07T10:58:09+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Wouter van Ooijen (www.voti.nl wrote:

>>In my book that was a management bug - If the managers had ordered to run
>>the testsuite only once the problem would have shown. The hardware was so
>>incompatible it would have failed all the time.
> 
> I assume you do know that it was not the computer hardware but the
> phyiscal paremeters (acceleration) of the rocket itself?
> 
>>Last not least: Runtime check where disabled for that incident. So if
>>anything: this incident speak in favor of runtime checks.

Yes, I do. I was just simplifying the hole rocket as "hardware".

> If this accident speaks for anything IMHO it speaks for sensible
> management. Which is apparently a problem on both sides of the ocean
> :(

Yes indeed.

With Regards

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com