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