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!news4.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" <robin_v@bigpond.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
 <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <To_cg.10095$S7.4017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <XVadg.76594$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4e078qF1cb6frU1@individual.net>
 <pan.2006.05.29.13.50.51.330501@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <4e0e21F1chamsU1@individual.net>
 <10qtgfusyium5.1fe6t8kirrzbf$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4e0h2aF1ccvnqU1@individual.net>
 <1j8hpasemtm7n$.1l1wrnukz7ewf$.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: <Eaifg.964$ap3.674@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 14:58:44 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.134.53.178
X-Complaints-To: abuse@bigpond.net.au
X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1149087524 144.134.53.178 (Thu,
 01 Jun 2006 00:58:44 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:58:44 EST
Organization: BigPond Internet Services
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4622 comp.lang.fortran:10555
Date: 2006-05-31T14:58:44+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
news:1j8hpasemtm7n$.1l1wrnukz7ewf$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:08:27 +0200, Jan Vorbr�ggen wrote:
>
> >>>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.
> >
> > If any error had been forseen, I might agree. But the problem lay in
handling
> > the unforseen error: that handling, in itself, led to failure. The approach
> > taken just wasn't tolerant of errors in the programming.
>
> Ah, but an unforeseen error is a bug. One cannot be bug-tolerant, it is
> self-contradictory, after all.

A program can be bug-tolerant.
Standard error-handling techniques dan del with them.
Such programs containing error handling are called fail-safe programs.