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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f948976d12c7ee33
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-24 06:12:25 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!out.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!propagator-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030611 Thunderbird/0.1a
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Boeing and Dreamliner
References: <mailman.4.1056169754.352.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <zN9Ja.2184$N%6.569@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3EF5F3F3.6000806@attbi.com>
 <e2e5731a.0306231813.35f7dd7a@posting.google.com>
 <pNOJa.9904$Kg7.2691@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <20619edc.0306232122.598389dd@posting.google.com>
 <3EF83EB5.6020204@noplace.com>
In-Reply-To: <3EF83EB5.6020204@noplace.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Y6YJa.40577$hI1.28108@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:12:24 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.84.222.154
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1056460344 162.84.222.154 (Tue,
 24 Jun 2003 09:12:24 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:12:24 EDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39664
Date: 2003-06-24T13:12:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Marin David Condic wrote:
 > It was adequately designed for the original intended usage and then stuck
 > in a different situation where it was not tested for the modified usage.

But the original designers didn't leave any indication behind that the
software they had written would fail in such a modified usage. That's
not just my conclusion, that's the conclusion of the investigatory
board. Had they documented the limits on trajectories, teh Ariane 5
team would have known that the code needed to be re-examined.

Since when do Ada advocates favor testing over documentation?