Jeffrey W. Stulin wrote:
> 
> Hi there:
> 
> As my father is fond of saying "You�ve got to play the percentages." By
> this he simply means that while nothing in life is guaranteed, it is
> still a good idea to attempt to arrange matters to give them the best
> opportunity of working out in your favor. And that is the answer to
> Ken�s questions.
> 
> If the Ariane software engineers had the reuse mindset, NOT the specific
> mechanisms of Eiffel, but the design by contract reuse mindset, then
> they MAY have written the assertion, and MAY have noticed, while
> integrating the modules, that the assertion would not have been met.
> 
> I often specify "impossible" assertions because, human nature being what
> it is, the impossible will happen, and it is exactly these non intuitive
> circumstances which cause the most trouble.
> 
> Now 95% of what Ken has stated about testing and so forth is perfectly
> correct. And indeed there is no guarantee that the MAYs above would have
> come to pass. However, it is not unreasonable to speculate that if the
> integrators had been trained with emphasis on the problems of reuse, the
> specification error might have been found. Perhaps likely to be found is
> a bit strong, but I don�t find that stretch much of a sin.
> 
>  Furthermore, the papers primary between-the-lines claim, that we better
> learn a reuse mindset since we are (finally) entering the age of
> software reuse, and that the penalties for a reuse error could be
> disastrous, is not a stretch at all. It is simple common sense.
> 
> I also find little fault with the implied notion that Eiffel is the
> language which would have had the best chance of finding this particular
> error. My reasoning is simple:  Eiffel is a thin surface for an idea,
> the idea of how to specify and reuse software (design by contract etc.).
> That�s what Eiffel is. Now there may be many areas where Ada would have
> strengths in solving problems and Eiffel would fall flat on its face.
> But not on issues of software reuse. Eiffel is simply the best.
> 
> Finally, I have no problem with Ken�s Putting BM & Co. feet to the
> flames. I enjoy seeing ideas stress tested and especially enjoy reading
> about the practical view of those involved in a particular industry. I
> do, however, object to Ken�s tone in some of his postings. As a reader I
> feel that I am being shouted at, and I don�t like it. Please keep
> posting Ken, but post calmer.

Sorry about that. Paraphrasing Twain: "I would have written calmer, but
I ran out of time."

I have no stong objection to the claim that I think you're making:
that DBC _might_ have improved the odds in this case. However, I think
there's a long way to go, for *this particular case*, to make the claim
that DBC would _probably_ have avoided the error. Improving the odds to
20%, for example, is still not "probably"!

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jeffrey W. Stulin
> 
> 

--
LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or
http://www.lmco.com