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=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:2923 comp.lang.ada:3311 comp.lang.c:26255 comp.lang.fortran:2928 comp.lang.lisp:2828 comp.lang.misc:4235 comp.lang.modula2:2116 comp.lang.pascal:3140 comp.lang.scheme:1098 alt.folklore.computers:1932 Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.pascal,comp.lang.scheme,alt.folklore.computers Path: utzoo!sq!msb From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: problems/risks due to programming language, stories requested Message-ID: <1990Feb24.001350.2617@sq.sq.com> Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers Reply-To: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto References: <9790@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 00:13:50 GMT List-Id: Gerald Baumgartner (gb@cs.purdue.EDU) writes in many groups: > There is the famous story that a Mariner probe got lost > because of the Fortran statement `DO 3 I = 1.3' (1.3 instead > of 1,3) ... It is a nice story but, as far as I know, NASA used > Jovial at that time and not Fortran. Just for the record, the above was definitively shown to be fictional according to authoritative references given in comp.risks (= Risks Digest), issue 9.75 (I hear), not too many months ago. There is at least one textbook that states it as truth; this is wrong. The actual reason for the loss of Mariner I was an error in code used in recovering from a hardware failure; the code had been based on handwritten equations, and in transcribing one of these, an overbar was deleted from one letter. A story which may have been the true origin of the "DO statement myth" was posted fairly recently in alt.folklore.computers; the article cited a program at NASA that did enter production use with a dot-for-comma bug in a DO statement, but it wasn't a spacecraft flight control program. (I didn't save the details and would be happy to see them again.) Followups directed to alt.folklore.computers. -- Mark Brader "I'm not going to post a revision: even USENET utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com readers can divide by 100." -- Brian Reid This article is in the public domain.