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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,55ae3803eb91d6ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada UK conference: SPARK safety: is no delivery better than 1
	defect?
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <355dc49a-3414-4883-a268-fa3bcc493e7b@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
References: <q9ntl.33022$l71.13235@newsfe23.iad>
 <C5DC2FAE.10E8E6%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
	<zsMtl.48994$Tp5.224@newsfe13.iad>
 <C5DD7F3A.10EC04%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
	<lB5ul.64542$Rg3.54974@newsfe17.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1236855140 26985 127.0.0.1 (12 Mar 2009 10:52:20
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:52:20 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197;
	posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.7)
	Gecko/2009021910 Firefox/3.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5034
Date: 2009-03-12T03:52:20-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I read your post three times and I still can't figure out what your
point is.

You claim that "iFACTS has failed as an engineering results" without
explaining what the failure is. What are the criteria for success that
iFACTS does not meet, in your opinion? And what are your sources of
information?

Also you say "iFACTS was ending with a lot of deficiencies" but I have
no idea what you are talking about because I am not an insider. Please
provide some details about your claims (links to published reports
would be excellent); explain why you think the "deficiencies" are
attributable to the development process or tools; propose a solution.
That would really contribute to the knowledge and wisdom of your
fellow software engineers. Right now, I for one am totally in the dark
and I have no idea what conclusion I'm supposed to draw from your
post.

--
Ludovic Brenta.