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,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: The stupidity of all the Ariane 5 analysts. Date: 1997/07/21 Message-ID: <33D3F2CB.61DC@flash.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 258041988 References: <33C835A5.362A@flash.net> <33CC0548.4099@flash.net> <5qitoi$fdv$1@news.irisa.fr> <33CD6512.2404@flash.net> <01bc92e6$7a6f9e40$287b7b7a@tlo2> <33CEAF05.6389@flash.net> <33D2827B.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <5qucs7$jie$3@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Reply-To: kennieg@flash.net Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-07-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert S. White wrote: > > The "crash" resulted > because of a failure to fully follow this existing practice. Yes, I agree. (I decided not to address the statement in the Eiffel paper that says the opposite, it seemed to be piling on.) Hope you get a chance to review my draft critique. Geoff Eldridge was kind enough to create an HTML version at: http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~geldridg/eiffel/ariane/ BTW, I just noticed the flaws in the example Eiffel code at the last minute (midnight Saturday, in fact). Did you and everyone else know it was wrong, and just not say anything, or did we all overlook the errors? _____________________________________________________________________ > Robert S. White -- An embedded systems software engineer