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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/04/13 Message-ID: <5irh5n$j88@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 234583479 References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> <2senchydgk.fsf@hpodid2.eurocontrol.fr> <5im3an$3dv@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <01bc46be$fb54cae0$3f6700cf@default> Organization: Prism Systems Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <01bc46be$fb54cae0$3f6700cf@default>, Larry J. Elmore wrote: >Kaz Kylheku wrote in article ><5im3an$3dv@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>... >> I wouldn't trust my life to any computer system, especially if it had >``Intel >> inside''. There are too many things that can go wrong _beside_ >programming >> errors. There is buggy hardware. There is also correct hardware which >fails to >> be fault tolerant. The sheer component count in a modern computer system >is >> astounding, as is the small size of the individual components. Would you >trust >> your life to a system in which an alpha particle emission can cause >> unpredictable behavior? > >I take it you never fly? Nor do you live near an airport? Or have a modern >car? Nope. Well, I have a modern car, but it's unlikely that its computer is very large and complex. It's probably programmed in assembly language. Also, the car is not ``drive by wire'' even if a computer is involved. If the computer fails, the car will not seriously malfunction or crash! At worst, it will exhibit poor performance. Hence I'm not trusting my life to the computer in any way. >Actually, as far as I know, modern computerized planes are a good deal >safer, on the whole, than they were back in the days when _everything_ was >mechanical. I guess you wouldn't want to trust your life to any mechanical >system, either? Especially since components _can_ fail and hidden >manufacturing defects show up at just the wrong moment... Actually, I would trust a mechanical system far more. There are ways to inspect mechanical systems for signs of wear and damage due to stress. You can also build mechanical systems to within certain tolerances; e.g. you can make a load bearing beam twice as strong as it needs to be by making a trivial change to its thickness. Is there any evidence that modern computerized planes are indeed safer? If they are, can the extra safety be directly attributed to the use of on-board computers?