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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f948976d12c7ee33
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-24 07:20:26 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nnxp1.twtelecom.net!216.170.153.135.MISMATCH!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Boeing and Dreamliner
Date: 24 Jun 2003 09:20:25 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <1xFchLhyi4sL@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <mailman.4.1056169754.352.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <zN9Ja.2184$N%6.569@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3EF5F3F3.6000806@attbi.com>
 <e2e5731a.0306231813.35f7dd7a@posting.google.com>
 <pNOJa.9904$Kg7.2691@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <20619edc.0306232122.598389dd@posting.google.com>
 <3EF83EB5.6020204@noplace.com> <Y6YJa.40577$hI1.28108@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1056464389 716 192.135.80.34 (24 Jun 2003
 14:19:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:19:49 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39670
Date: 2003-06-24T09:20:25-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <Y6YJa.40577$hI1.28108@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> Marin David Condic wrote:
>  > It was adequately designed for the original intended usage and then stuck
>  > in a different situation where it was not tested for the modified usage.
> 
> But the original designers didn't leave any indication behind that the
> software they had written would fail in such a modified usage. That's
> not just my conclusion, that's the conclusion of the investigatory
> board. Had they documented the limits on trajectories, teh Ariane 5
> team would have known that the code needed to be re-examined.

Should someone reusing software presume that it has no limitations at all ?

Would you reuse such software in a vehicle capable of Warp 5 ?