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: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!192.87.166.28.MISMATCH!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.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>
 <1cic9uxywxe5q$.1txc2yridbly9.dlg@40tude.net> <op.vdru9yi8xmjfy8@garhos>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:23:07 +0200
Message-ID: <2i3mv8sgbcwa.mgzppkof7iaj.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Jun 2010 14:23:07 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 02a7b880.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=WVA07eO:]Bk>jlK2>IgHGdMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOkbTfcCacN4db[6LHn;2LCVn7enW;^6ZC`d\`mfM[68DCcabZYm7g8=Od
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11277
Date: 2010-06-04T14:23:07+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:55:00 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:40:19 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>>> 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?
> This does not invalidate statistics on source of failures (OK to say this  
> can explains these statistics).

If you mean "lies, damned lies, and statistics" then yes. (Did you know
that 90% of people died in car accidents had eaten cucumbers shortly before
the accident? (:-))

If you mean mathematical statistics, then its applicability depends on
strict conditions. Prior these established the statistics (samples) of
failures is just a collection of anecdotes...

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