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,f66d11aeda114c52
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Samuel Mize <smize@link.com>
Subject: Re: Critique of Ariane 5 paper (finally!)
Date: 1997/08/14
Message-ID: <33F33261.127D@link.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 264178430
References: <33E503B3.3278@flash.net> <dewar.870870888@merv>
 <33E8FC54.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <33E9B217.39DA@flash.net>
 <33EA5592.5855@flash.net> <33EB4935.167EB0E7@eiffel.com>
 <33EB754E.446B9B3D@eiffel.com> <33EBE46D.2149@flash.net>
 <33EF9487.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <dewar.871389016@merv> <33F20BCE.AB3@link.com>
 <33F22AD8.41C67EA6@eiffel.com>
Reply-To: smize@link.com
Organization: Hughes Training Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-08-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bertrand Meyer wrote:
> 
> Samuel Mize wrote:
> 
> > > But to make the jump from sufficient to necessary is completely
> > > without basis, and can only be regarded as advertising puffery.
> >
> > Which appeared in a column in IEEE Computer magazine, positioning
> > it deceptively as a technical item instead of an ad.

As stated this was too strong, and I apologize.

> This is outrageous. ...
> Is any argument for CORBA, or OLE, or UML, or
> Unix, or Windows to be dismissed as as "deceptive",
> an "ad" and not a "technical item"?

In the part of my message you deleted, I stated my opinion that
your paper's conclusion is based on a severely and plainly false
premise.  It was on the basis of that that I dismiss it as being
an "ad" and not a "technical item."

I should have said that its appearance in IEEE Computer gives it
a cachet which may mislead people about its quality and objectivity.

I did not intend to suggest an intent to deceive on your part.
This is why I said the placement, not the author, was deceptive.
Again, I apologize.


> It seems that the idea of using modern techniques to
> improve software reliability shocks some people so much
> that they will find no argument too low in their effort
> to suppress it. Won't work.

Fortunately true.

Samuel Mize