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!news2.volia.net!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 17:08:27 +0200
Organization: MediaSec Technologies GmbH
Message-ID: <4e0h2aF1ccvnqU1@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$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4e078qF1cb6frU1@individual.net>
 <pan.2006.05.29.13.50.51.330501@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4e0e21F1chamsU1@individual.net>
 <10qtgfusyium5.1fe6t8kirrzbf$.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net S/MIyuA1sLBTqZ67OmBcVgogXuGSVkIwmcMpGOM9xLCgERfgf0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <10qtgfusyium5.1fe6t8kirrzbf$.dlg@40tude.net>
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4585 comp.lang.fortran:10429
Date: 2006-05-29T17:08:27+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>>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.
> I don't think so. The problem (bug) wasn't in an inappropriate handling of
> an error. It was a false positive in error detection. Handling was correct,
> detection was wrong.

If any error had been forseen, I might agree. But the problem lay in handling
the unforseen error: that handling, in itself, led to failure. The approach
taken just wasn't tolerant of errors in the programming.

	Jan