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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f039470e8f537101 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-22 11:29:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ariane5 FAQ Date: 22 Jul 2003 11:29:08 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <20619edc.0307221029.47fe6d31@posting.google.com> References: <1058799152.775376@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1058810510.375902@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1058813341.841940@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1058816605.566685@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 154.6.152.68 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1058898549 12812 127.0.0.1 (22 Jul 2003 18:29:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Jul 2003 18:29:09 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40660 Date: 2003-07-22T18:29:09+00:00 List-Id: Hyman Rosen wrote in message news:... > Vinzent Hoefler wrote: > > Well, one way or another - it did. It did exactly what is was supposed > > to do. > > No matter how many times people on this newsgroup repeat this, > it will not become true. The code was written on the assumption > that a certain parameter would never reach a particular value. > Its behavior under the contrary assumption was left unspecified. > It certainly did not do "what it was supposed to do" once the > assumption was violated. The system pretended that a hardware > error had happened. No matter how many times you repeat this, it will not become true. The code was written to handle every possible value of the parameter properly. Why you refuse to acknowledge this is a mystery. The only problem was the the proper handling of the parameter, over a certain range of values, for the Ariane 4 was not the proper handling of the parameter for Ariane 5. As yet another analogy (YAA?), consider a piston engine controller designed for an engine with a redline of 5000 RPM, and assume the controller has been designed to shut down the engine when 5000 RPM is exceeded. Put this controller on an engine with a redline of 8000 RPM because "there's no reason not to think it will work" and watch what happens in normal operation of that engine. And then tell me it's the fault of the engine controller software. BTW, I don't know how software can "pretend" something. The software simply implemented the actions that the designers determined were correct for that design. Are you suggesting that the software really knew, down deep in its heart of hearts, that there was no hardware failure?