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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!lon-transit.news.telstra.net!lon-in.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "robin" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran References: <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature> <4e078qF1cb6frU1@individual.net> <4e0e21F1chamsU1@individual.net> <10qtgfusyium5.1fe6t8kirrzbf$.dlg@40tude.net> Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 14:58:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.134.53.178 X-Complaints-To: abuse@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1149087523 144.134.53.178 (Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:58:43 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:58:43 EST Organization: BigPond Internet Services Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4623 comp.lang.fortran:10556 Date: 2006-05-31T14:58:43+00:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:10qtgfusyium5.1fe6t8kirrzbf$.dlg@40tude.net... > On Mon, 29 May 2006 16:17:06 +0200, Jan Vorbr�ggen wrote: > > >> Clearly, Ariane 5's case is not representative of the vast > >> bulk of real-world code. > > > > Quite to the contrary - almost all of the world's code is in embedded > > systems, Winwoes notwithstanding. > > > > But I believe you are overinterpreting what I said. What I wanted to say > > is that error detection without corrective action is not the panacea it > > is sometimes made out to be. > > I think one should clarify what was an error and what was a bug. Properly > detected, but improperly handled errors are bugs. Bugs cannot be handled. Bugs can be handled in many cases. Standard error handling can deal with them. > > In the case of Ariane 501, the correct approach > > IMO would have been to have a test mode (with detection) and a flight mode, > > which turns on the "let's hope and pray" handling of errors and is reserved > > for use only on actual launches. > > I don't think so. The problem (bug) wasn't in an inappropriate handling of > an error. It was a false positive in error detection. Handling was correct, > detection was wrong. ?? There was no handling of the unprotected error in the Ariane 5. The response was to shut down the processor.