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=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,PLING_QUERY,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,b6d862eabdeb1fc4
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!kanaga.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
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: <jhaJn.4661$z%6.1650@edtnps83>
 <0e88de66-128c-48fd-9b9f-fdb4357f318a@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
 <XogJn.4313$Z6.4310@edtnps82> <tarujgrysngw.1ln7awtgq3otu.dlg@40tude.net>
 <m8jJn.4317$Z6.1405@edtnps82> <op.vc40fcksule2fv@garhos>
 <22aKn.4575$Z6.3399@edtnps82>
 <8d5dbf6e-81fe-4419-aaad-118921a47b4a@q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
 <htc3e7$sjf$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <hHgKn.4608$Z6.3902@edtnps82>
 <82ocg5r7w5.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <18iz0ye51c3rk$.1wc5rwelax6hr$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <82wrusagcz.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <op.vdpelx1mxmjfy8@garhos>
 <82fx1317yh.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 11:40:19 +0200
Message-ID: <1cic9uxywxe5q$.1txc2yridbly9.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Jun 2010 11:40:01 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 26a139c2.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=E8h\30a>JIA0YVY]kmLTlD4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOK@AQ0S8o`DiF[6LHn;2LCVN7enW;^6ZC`D\`mfM[68DCC1`MP4?\KgEM
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12243
Date: 2010-06-04T11:40:01+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 05:08:06 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:

> "Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
> 
>> Le Tue, 25 May 2010 04:02:20 +0200, Stephen Leake
>> <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> a �crit:
> 
>> What is CMM ?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model
> 
>>> Commercial airline software is more reliable than the rest of the plane.
>> I encounter difficulties interpreting this one : do you mean
>> commercial applications or an airline company are typically more
>> reliable than the  one its planes ?
> 
> I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more
> reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane.

I wonder how would you (or anyone else) substantiate this claim. The
technical problem is that mechanical components faults have a stochastic
nature. I.e. you have a certain probability of fault (due to physical
processes involved in production and function of the given component). On
the contrary, a software fault is not stochastic, neither in its production
nor at run-time. A given bug is either here or not. There is no probability
associated with it. Isn't it comparing apples and oranges?

P.S. One thinkable scenario could be to consider all possible states of the
program. Let some of them when reached are considered as manifestation of a
certain fault. The probability that the states were reached might be
nominated the fault's probability. This model does not look very
convincing. Especially, because it rather depends on the program's inputs,
than on the program itself.

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