Re: Rebuttal to Ariane paper

[donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison)]

Lee Webber wrote:

:1. I am an Eiffel enthusiast; also, a developer with a generation's
:experience in networking and (mostly soft) real-time systems.
:
:2. I have however never actually used Eiffel in any project, much to
:my regret, because the existing systems have not been scaled to my
:platforms.  (Recent announcements, incluing Visual Eiffel and
:especially Embedded Eiffel, may change that.  We'll see if I can get
:out of my existing technical commitments.)
:
:3. I do agree with Ken that DBC per se wouldn't have saved Ariane,
:while any normal methodological diligence (with a methodology possibly
:including but not restricted to DBC) would have.
:
:4. I do think that the use of DBC in several projects might well have
:resulted in a design culture which would then have made Ariane less
:likely. However (as always with cultures) there is no inevitability
:about this.
:
:5. As for a couple of technical issues, executable assertions don't
:always work well with time-critical code, and some external entities
:don't model well as well-behaved objects.  The first of these
:observations might make DBC somewhat less useful in HRT apps than
:elsewhere -- but certainly not useless.  The second observation, IMO,
:hits at all specification and testing methodologies, not just DBC.
:
:6. As for reluctance, many Eiffelists (including myself) are simply
:not that qualified to speak to HRT issues.
:
:FWIW, YMMV. This is my first and last direct comment on Ariane.

Sensible comments.


Don.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don Harrison     nospam@thankyou.maam.com.au