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: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/08/16 Message-ID: <33F6701D.1D37@flash.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 265331173 References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> <33F133D7.71AC@erols.com> <33F25933.7F83@flash.net> <33F27B5C.6A3C@erols.com> <33F44261.7BD3@flash.net> <33F527C8.32B3@erols.com> <33F5D274.30C4@flash.net> Reply-To: Ken.Garlington@computer.org Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon S Anthony wrote: > > In article <33F5D274.30C4@flash.net> Ken Garlington writes: > > > > To begin with, by "_always_ turned off", I assume what is meant is > > > "turned off during execution of a delivered system", not "turned off > > > during execution of a delivered system and during its entire development > > > phase". > > > > Not how the original argument was phrased. However if you want to argue > > the merits of turning them on during development and then off for > > released > > code, see section 3.2.2 of > > > > http://www.flash.net/~kennieg/ariane.html > > > > for my rebuttal. > > You know, it would really help if most of the people trying to "argue" > some contrary point here, would read this paper and understand it > before going off. Most of the counter arguments pretty much simply > evaporate at that point. Thanks for the vote of confidence, although I don't think the paper's _that_ strong :) Perhaps it's because there's not enough people who (a) use Eiffel, (b) use the Internet, (c) care about this discussion, and (d) have experience in Ariane 5-type systems, but I have been disappointed that there's been very little movement of the discussion from my arguments, as included in the paper. Most of the responses have either been 1. Repetitions of the "party line" (no specific discussion of any of the arguments in the paper), or 2. Emotional reactions to the idea that Eiffel might not be the best solution. Neither has been particularly interesting. The SCOOP thread has been useful, but it doesn't really relate to the Ariane 5 discussion. I am particularly disappointed that the example in the Web version of the Eiffel paper hasn't been corrected. Mr. Meyer and others may disagree with my opinions, but I would think they would at least correct obvious errors of fact once identified. > /Jon > -- > Jon Anthony > OMI, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 > "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, > Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari