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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d923bb34ea827f56
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: digitig@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Tim Rowe")
Subject: Re: Ada / Boeing 777
Date: 1996/03/23
Message-ID: <Dop4t1.LMI@cix.compulink.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143799176
references: <kurtz-1903961457350001@bdcm46.nrl.navy.mil>
organization: Compulink Information eXchange
x-news-software: Ameol
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Bob Kurtz (kurtz@mustang.nrl.navy.mil) wrote:

> (probably vague) requirements?  Or worse yet, you could have as many 
> sets
> of perfect software as you like, all written to be compliant with faulty
> requirements.

Certainly my experience is that most serious system faults I have dealt 
with have originated with the requirements. I don't think that means we 
can neglect all the stuff that's being done at the moment over software 
safety, but I think it gives a hint as to what needs looking at now.

digiTig
(Tim Rowe)