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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f948976d12c7ee33 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-27 10:46:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news.uunet.ca!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3EFC7F5A.6020502@cogeco.ca> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Boeing and Dreamliner References: <3EF5F3F3.6000806@attbi.com> <3EF7F94D.5080105@attbi.com> <3EF88A7E.5060304@attbi.com> <3EFC7BCF.6B038EED@adaworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:31:06 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1056735066 198.96.223.163 (Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:31:06 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:31:06 EDT Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39839 Date: 2003-06-27T13:31:06-04:00 List-Id: Richard Riehle wrote: > "Robert I. Eachus" wrote: >>But to me the crowning idiocy of the whole thing is in one sentence of >>the report: "The main explanation for the absence of this test has >>already been mentioned above, i.e. the SRI specification (which is >>supposed to be a requirements document for the SRI) does not contain the >>Ariane 5 trajectory data as a functional requirement." > > Since this discussion began as a dialogue about the Boeing 7E7, and someone > raised the question of whether C++ would be appropriate for software on > that aircraft, the lesson of Ariane 5 is important for the engineers. ... > I have trained engineers to program in Ada and they take to it well and > understand > the underlying rationale for its design. I have trained C++ programmers and > many > of the spend their time arguing about how they can do such-and-such in C++ and > why can't they do it that way in Ada. ... > Richard Riehle This experience once again demonstrates that mantra "skills are trainable, but _attitudes_ are not." Many younger folk seem to think their skillset is their most marketable asset. This is perhaps true for contractors. But for fulltime staff, companies want the right attitude, which is very difficult, if not impossible to change. Skills OTOH, can be provided through training and experience. This seems to extend into the use of Ada, as Richard just demonstrated. People can be trained to use Ada (adopting the right attitude), vs changing the attitude of skilled C/C++ (adopting the language Ada). -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg