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: a07f3367d7,f096ebb5dcac664d
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ariane 5 Failure from 1996
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:54:29 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <7qgh555mb9bdkkl0nvcf3f36ccsouvgcdh@4ax.com>
References: <ocle559uc4fu5roesre66ir69bqe9p4f03@4ax.com>
 <14e1cf5c-b053-49ec-83c8-d36b9afc49ab@p29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
  <4n1f5510eum9c0b53rb1ui111rmgf23fgd@4ax.com>
 <bt2f55pt0m67ceaiesifrdp80ktsulpbdr@4ax.com>
 <2fc55a5a-02e6-4e3d-b172-fd0a0a37cd0e@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RXEkuaSUwmKe0XIGFYSK7A.user.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.7.9
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
Cancel-Lock: sha1:E6Evx9NK0p9y/UaQj1kem0db+Sc=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6989
Date: 2009-07-11T17:54:29+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:10:05 -0700 (PDT), jonathan
<johnscpg@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
>(First, I defer to Marin Condic's analysis (search cla for: condic
>ariane 5).
>Unlike me he knows about this.)
>
>In fact I thought I was paraphasing Marin Condic's conclusions, but I
>might
>have dreamt it!
>
>I still find the summary I gave plausible: as soon as they disabled
>the
>checks on the infamous variable there is no reason why a different set
>of requirements or specifications would have to be, or would have
>been drawn up for C, Ada, Fortran etc versions of the software.

Well, yes, but my understanding was that the requirements for Ariane 5
were defined, but no one bothered to spot that they were different to
Ariane 4 in terms of the intertial reference system operation hence
reuse of the Ariane 4 SRI as is was not appropriate.

Funnily enough, I have personal experience of changing requirements
being ignored by a French person.