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: 2003-06-24 09:38:46 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:38:06 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rodrigo_Garc=EDa?= <rodrigo.garcia.ARROBA.epfl.ch>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020513
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Boeing and Dreamliner
References: <mailman.4.1056169754.352.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <zN9Ja.2184$N%6.569@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3EF5F3F3.6000806@attbi.com>
 <e2e5731a.0306231813.35f7dd7a@posting.google.com>
 <3EF7EE09.7040505@attbi.com> <hfYJa.40656$hI1.17049@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: lglpc31.epfl.ch
Message-ID: <3ef87e91$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>
X-Trace: epflnews.epfl.ch 1056472721 128.178.76.8 (24 Jun 2003 18:38:41 +0200)
Organization: EPFL
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp.infostrada.it!news.mailgate.org!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!epflnews.epfl.ch!not-for-mail
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39676
Date: 2003-06-24T18:38:06+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
>> The SRI requirements document was never updated for the Ariane 5, and 
>> as I pointed out, the software had built in parameters that reflected 
>> physical constants relating to the Ariane4.
> 
> 
> The report says that these physical constraints were not described in the
> documentation of the SRI software, and therefore the people who attempted
> to reuse it had no clue that it would fail outside of such limits.
> 
> Do you think it's appropriate to write software like that and not tell
> anyone about it? If the code was in C++ and the failure mode was a
> buffer overflow, would you accept that argument, or would you be villifying
> that language?
> 


What is the advantage of C++ here? You would have to document all 
possible "out of range" values and "buffer overflow" cases. In Ada, you 
save the "buffer overflow" section.

Rodrigo