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: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!inka.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!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 14:07:35 +0100 Message-ID: <87tyeyc548.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <4d80b140$0$43832$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ruchba.enyo.de 1300626455 18694 172.17.135.6 (20 Mar 2011 13:07:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@enyo.de Cancel-Lock: sha1:SrCmvi47MlYjRb2ek+/hfkmWmeM= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:19298 Date: 2011-03-20T14:07:35+01:00 List-Id: * 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. > > Let me repeat: There was no programming error. The software was > correct for the Ariane 4. If at all it was a deployment or management > error in installing Ariane 4 software on the Ariane 5. How many committee meetings do you need during the development of the software that this is no longer considered programming 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. If you take an extremely narrow view of programming, treating it as the supposedly mechanical conversion from a (semi)formal specification to input which can be processed by a given compiler, then this might not be considered a programming error. But programming is not a mechanical activity, and programmers are expected to notice such problems and address them before the code ships. Of course, in large systems, with compartmentalized design and development, it is unreasonable to expect that they can do this in all cases, hence my reference to committee meetings.