Re: Critique of Ariane 5 paper (finally!)

[Samuel Mize <smize@link.com>]

Thomas Beale wrote:
> With this point of view you would consign centuries of vigorous
> intellectual debate in all domains of knowledge to the dustbin.
> I wonder what Plato would have thought, if you, rather than including
> your judgements of his theories (no matter how extreme your
> disagreement) in the debate at the time, tried to paint them
> as product advertisements?

I'm not talking about his theories (DBC/Eiffel).  I'm talking about
the quality and content of one specific paper.  In that context it
IS appropriate to characterize the paper.

Specifically, I'm talking about its misstatement of OTHER
PEOPLES' practices.

The paper claims DBC/Eiffel is THE ONE method that could have
found the Ariane 5 flaw, and that current methods did not.  But
the appropriate methods WERE NOT USED.  The Ariane 5 crash does
NOT demonstrate the inadequacy of current practice.

The paper raises and kills a straw man.  It thus fails to qualify
as a technical argument.

It seems to me, this should have been apparent to the authors:

* They have apparently read the ESA analysis, which lists several
  accepted and common methods that WOULD have uncovered the flaw.

* To publish a paper critical of current practice in the
  development of mission-critical and life-critical software,
  it would be appropriate to investigate just what the current
  practice IS in that field.  Postings by people in that field
  have made clear that the Ariane 5 INS reuse was NOT an example
  of "widely accepted industry practices" in this field.

Had he claimed that DBC/Eiffel was one of several methods that
could have averted the disaster, I would consider his paper weak
but technically competent.  Instead he asserts: "To attempt to
reuse software without Eiffel-like assertions is to invite failures
of potentially disastrous consequences."  "For reuse to be
effective, Design By Contract is a requirement."

Since, in my opinion, these absolutist claims are supported ONLY
by raising and killing a straw man, and the authors should have
realized this, I cannot consider the paper a valid technical
contribution.  It seems to be either advertising fluffery or
evidence of complete ignorance about technical debate.  It seems
less insulting to consider it the former.

Both you and Mr. Meyer are responding to a perceived attack on
DBC/Eiffel.  I have made no such attack.  I have stated my
opinion that DBC/Eiffel is ONE method that might have caught
the Ariane 5 flaw.  However, the paper claims that ONLY Eiffel
could have caught the flaw, and this is (in my opinion) an
irresponsible denigration of the standard practices of a lot
of my colleagues.

Samuel Mize