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!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:11:39 +0200 Organization: MediaSec Technologies GmbH Message-ID: <4e29g8F1c5p6tU1@individual.net> References: <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature> <4e078qF1cb6frU1@individual.net> <4e0e21F1chamsU1@individual.net> <10qtgfusyium5.1fe6t8kirrzbf$.dlg@40tude.net> <4e0h2aF1ccvnqU1@individual.net> <1j8hpasemtm7n$.1l1wrnukz7ewf$.dlg@40tude.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 8BfvRdZ6K9EWnR7/ARG/RQTzc9KdeVnmOrKegsdOvflB6Fp6Vl User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en In-Reply-To: <1j8hpasemtm7n$.1l1wrnukz7ewf$.dlg@40tude.net> Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4601 comp.lang.fortran:10468 Date: 2006-05-30T09:11:39+02:00 List-Id: > Ah, but an unforeseen error is a bug. One cannot be bug-tolerant, it is > self-contradictory, after all. Programming error (bug) means that the > system's state is not adequate to the physical system. Which could be the > rocket falling right onto the control tower. But that's no matter, because > there is no way for the program to know anything about that. Once you start > to judge about such undesired program states (even purely statistically), > and change the program, they automatically become *foreseen*. I don't consider that distinction helpful - it's like saying that economically important algorithms are NP-complete and thus unsolveable, while experience tells you that almost all practical problems turn out to be solveable with polynomial algorithms or at least reach approximations to the optimal solution that are economically indistinguishable. It's similar to approaches people have in driving cars. On the one hand, you can drive "defensively", i.e., you take into account that other participants in traffic might not behave in an optimal way. Or you can drive agressively, with the expactation that should somebody else suffer a momentary lapse of concentration, say, you will have a crash. Incidentally, I consider "graceful degradation" the hallmark of good engi- neering, and the Ariane 501 design was anything but that. The control system of your body, on the other hand, is the best known example of a system showing this property. Jan