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: 103376,7e8cebf09cf80560 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!news.gnuher.de!news.enyo.de!not-for-mail From: Florian Weimer Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How would Ariane 5 have behaved if overflow checking were notturned off? Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:17:29 +0100 Message-ID: <87ei617die.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <4d80b140$0$43832$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <87tyeyc548.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ruchba.enyo.de 1300652251 25997 172.17.135.6 (20 Mar 2011 20:17:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@enyo.de Cancel-Lock: sha1:fmsY9yfHeySY+0hI2HOocJa33Z4= Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18337 Date: 2011-03-20T21:17:29+01:00 List-Id: * Martin Krischik: > Am 20.03.2011, 14:07 Uhr, schrieb Florian Weimer : > >> * Martin Krischik: >> >>> Am 16.03.2011, 11:41 Uhr, schrieb robin : >>> >>>> That was the major blunder that they made, >>>> namely, treating a programming error as a hardware error. > >> If I take a piece of code, say from a Stackoverflow discussion, and >> paste it into the project I'm working on, and it later crashes, I >> doubt anyone would *not* consider this a programming error. Even if I >> had a manager that told me to use that code, I would still consider it >> my fault that I didn't integrate it properly. > > That would only be correct if a programmer would do the copy paste > job. But it is my understanding that no programmers and testers had > been involved in the Ariane 5 disaster. Just a deployer to install > the software. The report isn't totally clear on this point ("practically the same" can mean anything when applied to software). If the SRI was literally unchanged from Ariane 4, then you could indeed argue that this was a deployment problem. But if it was changed beyond mere recompilation, there was new development, and the component should definitely have been tested in an up-to-date simulation. Apparently, that was the plan, but then a test waiver was issued (in yet another committee meeting).