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,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen@not-mediasec.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 16:17:06 +0200
Organization: MediaSec Technologies GmbH
Message-ID: <4e0e21F1chamsU1@individual.net>
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
 <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <To_cg.10095$S7.4017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <XVadg.76594$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4e078qF1cb6frU1@individual.net>
 <pan.2006.05.29.13.50.51.330501@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net vkGxNa54qbn/s0/4MIiXPgDjbLdhY/Mkn0XDv8QnZltL1Vy9eW
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <pan.2006.05.29.13.50.51.330501@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4582 comp.lang.fortran:10426
Date: 2006-05-29T16:17:06+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Clearly, Ariane 5's case is not representative of the vast
> bulk of real-world code.

Quite to the contrary - almost all of the world's code is in embedded
systems, Winwoes notwithstanding.

But I believe you are overinterpreting what I said. What I wanted to say
is that error detection without corrective action is not the panacea it
is sometimes made out to be. In the case of Ariane 501, the correct approach
IMO would have been to have a test mode (with detection) and a flight mode,
which turns on the "let's hope and pray" handling of errors and is reserved
for use only on actual launches. In other cases  - e.g., my SAT receiver
or similar system - the best approach probably is to do a warm reboot and,
after a certain number of recurrences, a cold reboot. That, again, can lead
to a denial-of-service attack: Some older Siemens mobile phones have a bug
in parsing the header data of SMS (the code assumes that violations of the
standardized format cannot happen), which allows a perpretator to send you
an SMS that will disable your phone until you manage to delete the offending
SMS on a phone that does not have the bug.

In summary, error detection is similar to asking a girl out on a date: you
should think beforehand of what you'll do if the says "yes".

	Jan