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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,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 Subject: Re: Critique of Ariane 5 paper (finally!) Date: 1997/08/15 Message-ID: <33F4908D.3509@link.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 264933294 References: <33E503B3.3278@flash.net> <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> <33F20BCE.AB3@link.com> <33F22AD8.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <33F33261.127D@link.com> <33F39E3C.50FB@invest.amp.com.au> Reply-To: smize@link.com Organization: Hughes Training Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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