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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,5da92b52f6784b63 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: ffc1e,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gidffc1e,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Papers on the Ariane-5 crash and Design by Contract Date: 1997/03/26 Message-ID: <333962EA.F1E@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 228523659 References: <332B5495.167EB0E7@eiffel.com> Organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.programming.threads,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > To say that your paper is not trying to disparage Ada here is > certainly highly creative. By the way, this wasn't my point in my original post. My point was that the suggestion that Design by Contract was not tightly coupled to the Eiffel language is not supported by the paper. In fact, the paper goes to great pains to imply that Eiffel is the only suitable language to solve the Ariane 5 problem (contradicting its earlier qualified statement that Ada was sufficient). Mr. Meyer reinforces this in his later posts. It reminds me of these annoying posts about various web sites: "I just visited this great web site..." Of course, it's THEIR web site they're promoting, but the writer wants to give off an air of impartiality to impress the reader. So, is this paper an impartial analysis of the Ariane 5 problem, or an Eiffel sales pitch buried inside an impartial-sounding paper? I would be more convinced of the former if, for example: (a) more of the criticisms I and others have expressed were addressed (b) the paper did not continuously mix the discussion of Eiffel (after all, the paper states Ada was sufficient) with the Ariane 5 specifics. (c) the paper had fewer appeals to authority at the end (always a red flag in any argument) (d) the paper indicated that the authors had some insight beyond just the final report (and I'm not convinced even that is demonstrated!). For example, who on the Ariane 5 team has been interviewed regarding the issues described in this paper? However, I suspect that criticisms of this paper are falling on deaf ears, so I would not expect it to change... -- LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality" For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or http://www.lmco.com