Re: Faulty languages and Liability

[Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <3D10A7A0.376A5F45@NOSPAM.visteon.com>, John Kern <jkern3@NOSPAM.visteon.com> writes:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
>> In a real court case, issues of compiler validation would likely not
>> have any bearing unless it can be shown the compiler in question made
>> an error that would have been caught by a validated compiler.
> 
> 
> I once heard from one of my professors that they preferred to take
> testimony from only engineers certified Professional Engineers.  If I
> were on a jury and someone told me that they used a "Validated"
> compiler, I think I would think more highly of it than otherwise, even
> if I didn't know what it meant.

Competent opposing counsel would make sure you knew what that meant.

> Wouldn't your argument also hold that if a language in question allowed
> an error that would have been caught by another language?

Certainly if the error in question was the cause of the problem.
Not if management running the software on the wrong hardware (rocket)
was the cause of the problem.

> If a field of endeavor establishes an industry "best practice" say for
> eliminating errors in embedded software, (say MISRA C coding standards),
> I think a supplier is at risk for deviating.

Perhaps in an Enron-style trial for gross misconduct, but not for
a trial about a particular failure incident.