From: digitig@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Tim Rowe")
Subject: Re: Ada puff piece Boeing 777 "major disappointment"
Date: 1996/03/16
Date: 1996-03-16T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DoDsIK.3Lq@cix.compulink.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 4ib8va$fl3@fred.netinfo.com.au
The standard I quoted (Draft IEC 1508) is a *system* standard, not a
software standard (software is specifically addressed in part 3), and the
claim limits apply even (IIRC) in the presence of error-tolerant
software. AFAICS (and it matches my own experience) part of it is down to
the idea that in a system as complicated as modern ones, you don't even
know what you *want* it to do to a confidence better than 1-1*10^5.
I think the solution *is* self evident, or at least part of the basic
training of all engineers in disciplines other than software, as "KISS".
(Keep It Simple, Stupid!)
digiTig
(Tim Rowe)
parent reply other threads:[~1996-03-16 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <4ib8va$fl3@fred.netinfo.com.au>]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox