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 2002:a02:4fda:: with SMTP id r87mr624123jad.23.1551778410867; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 01:33:30 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:66c9:: with SMTP id t9mr373099otm.36.1551778410585; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 01:33:30 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!y42no104970ita.0!news-out.google.com!v188ni152itb.0!nntp.google.com!y22no104489ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 01:33:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.9.245.14; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.9.245.14 References: <2199b15b-d704-403f-a6c4-00fab29792d5@googlegroups.com> <72738cc8-3f65-4cc1-8c61-b1166cb5e3c2@googlegroups.com> <9807ec3a-4c34-4641-acfa-e9cf22de95ce@googlegroups.com> <51611452-1f49-4d8d-b93d-363cbbee29d0@googlegroups.com> <6a0fe4c2-a8e6-4d15-8cbf-f5a85ba0cd86@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1a5fae09-bbbf-4bdb-be8c-6a2e3fd70dfa@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada in command / control systems From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 09:33:30 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:55785 Date: 2019-03-05T01:33:30-08:00 List-Id: > Rather incompleteness and/or lack of usability. But why do you expect a single tool to be complete, if we can get completen= ess from the combination of tools? From what G.B. wrote in a sibling post, = it looks like source code alone is not complete and usable in some contexts= , either. > > Actually, Ada would be dead already if this possibilities did not exist= . Same with modeling. >=20 > It would not be Ada if it could not this. But nobody would like to do it. So everybody accepts technology mixes for t= he sake of work efficiency. That's why nobody complains about s-functions, = it just looks like any other mix. > You have a huge system integration problems caused by language=20 > impedance No. This integration happens at a lower scale, so it is not a system proble= m. I can call s-function written in C (or Ada!) form the Simulink model wit= hout much concern about language impedance. I think that calling Ada functi= ons from Python is more involved, even though they share paradigms. > which becomes impossible when you have to connect models from=20 > different paradigms. You must break out of one model go to a reasonable= =20 > language and then re-enter into yet another model. And what can prevent me from doing it? If I call C functions from Ada, the = integration is actually happening at the object level (by linker, not by co= mpiler), because these languages do not much care about each other. So I ne= ed to go outside to glue things together. That is, if I need to stitch thin= gs at a level that is outside of my normal area of operation, then why I sh= ould worry about doing exactly the same with models? It is the same thing. > Better. This debunks the whole argument about pseudo-requirements. How=20 > can you write requirements in a model language bounds of which=20 > applicability and the role in the whole system is unknown? Making this judgement is the responsibility of person doing tool evaluation= . Experience with previous projects helps. > Presently tools play a huge=20 > role in avoiding liability. This is also a good reason why they are not likely to disappear. Again, the= re is no coming back to source code. > And my observation is that the West moves away=20 > from legalism. Whatever law and norms may say, people and companies are= =20 > made liable. So the safety might be imaginary. This is an interesting observation, and perhaps related to the bigger notio= n of change that is slowly happening. But still, it has nothing to do with = model-based engineering. --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com