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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.107.175.131 with SMTP id p3mr21053588ioo.31.1522204025402; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:27:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4807:: with SMTP id c7-v6mr624852otf.1.1522204025297; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!paganini.bofh.team!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!199-v6no5729137itl.0!news-out.google.com!u64-v6ni1239itb.0!nntp.google.com!u184-v6no5749762ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:27:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <9ed9edb1-3342-4644-89e8-9bcf404970ee@googlegroups.com> <26a1fe54-750c-45d7-9006-b6fecaa41176@googlegroups.com> <656fb1d7-48a4-40fd-bc80-10ba9c4ad0a4@googlegroups.com> <0e59a988-ed21-4e45-a2ed-7a51995dbe6c@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3d89972e-8a19-4614-87f5-c4b7abe7da2f@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Killing software and certification (was: Ada-Oriented GUI) From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 02:27:05 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51224 Date: 2018-03-27T19:27:05-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:04:46 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Dan'l Miller" wrote in message=20 > news:0e59a988-ed21-4e45-a2ed-7a51995dbe6c@googlegroups.com... > ... > > ... it is up to the consumer to read the label on a product to see whet= her > > the product has been designed and manufactured in accordance with > > various voluntary regimes of best-practices in industry-standards. >=20 > That's surely helpful for the lady that was run over crossing the street. >=20 > Self-driving cars have safety requirements near those of avionics softwar= e.=20 > But the actual requirements on such software is far from the same. I'm=20 > afraid it will take a bunch of lawsuits to get the automakers in line, an= d=20 > quite possibly not even that. (I hear they actively want to avoid making= =20 > software that actually is known to work.) >=20 > Randy. My point is that self-driving-automobile companies that, say, adopt DO-178B= /C level of rigor (and implement in Ada with proper RTOS) will have vastly = more de facto safe harbor in a lawsuit from either that lady's estate, the = attorney general, or the FTC/NTSB. Conversely, companies that cannot demon= strate adherence to regimes of rigor (or demonstrate adherence to a relativ= ely worthless regime of rigor) are wide open to lawsuits incoming from mult= iple trajectories, precisely aimed at their deep pockets. Randy, if you want to achieve your goal of Ada2020 saving lives in self-dri= ving vehicles, then you (personally and as all of ARG in the plural) need t= o hitch your Ada2020 wagon to IATF 16949 or other automotive quality-manage= ment best-practices to bring DO-178B/C or equivalent requirements to the au= tomotive industry. Ada2020 can have the most perfect solution to provably-= correct tasking, but if its adoption is neither required nor strongly motiv= ated by a quality-management regime, then no one will even know of your ach= ievement. There exists an expedient backdoor to forcibly ramming Ada and DO-178B/C-es= que requirements on the self-driving automotive industry (and/or the larger= drive-by-wire automotive industry, e.g., the Toyota debacle). That backdo= or is the automotive property-casualty insurance industry. If no insurer w= ill affordably insure self-driven automobiles that lack, say, DO-178B/C com= pliance (and better yet the promised Ada2020 provable-correctness in taskin= g), then Ada will win the safety-critical-vehicles war and many of the majo= r battles in that war. Trusting that Ada2020's forthcoming awesome goodnes= s will magically appear in automobiles by passive osmosis would be a recipe= for being a coulda-woulda-shoulda footnote in the history books. Statutor= y laws tend to follow whatever the automotive property-casualty insurance i= ndustry's lobbyists demand in Washington DC and in state legislatures. (Here I am assuming that your Ada2020 goals come to fruition practically. = I hope that they do, even though I am skeptical.)