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!news4.google.com!news2.volia.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.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$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4e078qF1cb6frU1@individual.net>
 <pan.2006.05.29.13.50.51.330501@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4e0e21F1chamsU1@individual.net>
 <10qtgfusyium5.1fe6t8kirrzbf$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4e0h2aF1ccvnqU1@individual.net>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:03:26 +0200
Message-ID: <1j8hpasemtm7n$.1l1wrnukz7ewf$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 May 2006 19:03:22 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: d584581f.newsread2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=oiPI07i`95PghFd\k@b23TQ5U85hF6f;TjW\KbG]kaMXVA=iV<7g:2U3E3efgjmcaSWRXZ37ga[7ZjTA67ckJ=XU9n3a>^_3:O_
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4588 comp.lang.fortran:10436
Date: 2006-05-29T19:03:22+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:08:27 +0200, Jan Vorbr�ggen wrote:

>>>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.
> 
> If any error had been forseen, I might agree. But the problem lay in handling
> the unforseen error: that handling, in itself, led to failure. The approach
> taken just wasn't tolerant of errors in the programming.

Ah, but an unforeseen error is a bug. One cannot be bug-tolerant, it is
self-contradictory, after all. Programming error (bug) means that the
system's state is not adequate to the physical system. Which could be the
rocket falling right onto the control tower. But that's no matter, because
there is no way for the program to know anything about that. Once you start
to judge about such undesired program states (even purely statistically),
and change the program, they automatically become *foreseen*.

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