Re: ADA made me hate programming

["Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com>]

I don't think you're a very good Ada programmer or software designer.

A good designer needs to plan ahead, anticipate problems, be skeptical 
of theirs and other's ideas, designs, and software. In these exchanges 
you show little or no indication of possessing these qualities.

For example, in this thread you claimed that it had been reported that 
missile IFTUs (In-Flight Target Updates) had been hacked. I said:

 >>>> Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report".

You finally responded with:

 > FOX/CBS/ABC/NBC "AP wire" -- should I go on.

Why yes, you should. When was the supposed report supposedly broadcast? 
Is the video of the report online somewhere? What link? Is there a 
transcript of the news report, or an article writeup (most news 
organizations do have online articles about news stories of significant 
interest--of which hacking in-flight missiles would certainly qualify)?

Now, if you thought that would be a sufficient reference, when it is 
self-evidently inadequately specified, and so vague as to support 
*nothing*, then you clearly didn't anticipate this obvious problem with 
your response, suggesting you don't do well in anticipating problems. 
And that's a real handicap when it comes to designing software.

Or you knew this was insufficient, but hoped I wouldn't. This goes back 
to your apparent lack of problem anticipation abilities. :-)

Or you know you can't substantiate the report, but just can't bear to 
back down in public from something you proclaimed and then fervently 
defended. It's hard, I know, I've had to do it when I've been mistaken 
on the facts about some matter.

This then illustrates an inability to plan ahead. Immediately upon my 
questioning your claim, you should have been able to see where this 
could go (and subsequently has gone) and either made sure you had 
reputably-sourced facts in hand, or immediately backpedaled. You did 
neither, and continued to mount a wholly inadequate defense of your 
questionable claim.  So not only did you apparently not realize you had 
encountered a real problem, but you were unable to foresee the potential 
consequences as it played out. Again, these are serious weaknesses when 
it comes to designing software in Ada or any other programming language.


Let me give you an example of how to properly defend a claim--from this 
same posting.

I stated that:

 >>   And while violating one's clearance would subject them to
 >> potentially serious penalties, the nature of the violation would
 >> have to be quite egregious to rise to the level of Treason.

You could have questioned me on this, that I provide some backup for it 
from a reputable source. You lacked genuine skepticism about my claim, 
and rather than demanding I back it up, you made another unsourced claim:

 > Anytime US is at war, include the ones the we are in today, the
 > charge is more likely to be Treason than any other charge.

Refuting this claim is trivial:

"In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 
federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions.

"The Cold War period saw few prosecutions for treason. On October 11, 
2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason 
against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for 
videos in which he appeared as a spokesman for al-Qaeda and threatened 
attacks on American soil."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States

This is a sort of back-hand support for my claim, in that violating 
one's security clearance would have to be of an extraordinarily serious 
nature to rise to the level of treason.

It is, however, a thorough repudiation of yours, and from what's 
considered a fairly reputable source--Wikipedia. (And if you question 
that source, there are numerous links provided to the reputable sources 
for its information. See how this works?)

There are several additional claims and statements made in the rest of 
that posting which are indicative of a lack of problem recognition, 
foresight, and skeptical abilities; and a profound ignorance of how the 
aerospace and defense industry actually functions.  If you want to bring 
them up, fine, I'll address them.

But it's just the "same old same old" when it comes to dealing with your 
postings. There's so much ignorance and ineptitude in your statements 
that anything of actual value is lost in the junk.

Think before you post. If questioned, can you link or reference a 
*specific* supporting source?  If you're making a claim, and it's 
disputed, anticipate where it might end up, and prepare for that in advance.

Work hard. Think.

Marc A. Criley