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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,28cd155693714664
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-17 01:28:17 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!nntpserver.com!DirecTVinternet!DirecTV-DSL!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-maxim!propagator-maxim!news-in.spamkiller.net!news02.tsnz.net!newsfeed01.tsnz.net!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail
From: "AG" <a_n_g@x_t_r_a.c_o.n_z>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <mailman.1024203543.21257.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3D0C7C0B.5000707@mail.com> <27085883.0206161028.276e62e4@posting.google.com>
 <3D0D31D2.2000104@mail.com>
Subject: Re: Faulty languages and Liability
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <B4hP8.5679$iR2.473515@news.xtra.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 20:29:44 +1200
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.54.72.57
X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz
X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1024302497 210.54.72.57 (Mon,
 17 Jun 2002 20:28:17 NZST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 20:28:17 NZST
Organization: Xtra
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26128
Date: 2002-06-17T20:29:44+12:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3D0D31D2.2000104@mail.com...

>
> The point of Ariane 5 is that the rocket blew up even though the software
> was written in Ada. This very much weakens the arguments that could be
> made that one should have used Ada instead of [lang], since there is a
> spectacular failure which demonstrates that writing in Ada is no panacea.
> So we just get back to the usual arguments about why one language is
> better than another, but there isn't much there for liability suits to
> claim that one should have used a different language.
>

Well, to continue the car similarity from another post - sure, any type of
a car tyre may and will blow up now and then. The question is - was it
faulty to beging with?  Was there a better alternative? Did the manufacurer
take a due care? As a number of recent successful law-suits show, the legal
opinion seems to be not in your favour...