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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac9405996d0dcb7f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newspeer2.se.telia.net!se.telia.net!newsfeed.bahnhof.se!195.197.54.117.MISMATCH!feeder1.news.jippii.net!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail From: "Enrique Laso Leon" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <2004112218292016807%david@bottoncom> <20619edc.0411251028.3e249bf3@posting.google.com> <41A7014E.8090803@mailinator.com> <41a731d4$0$7824$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> Subject: Re: Would You Fly an Airplane with a Linux-Based Control System? 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: NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.103.28.60 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 1102186681 213.103.28.60 (Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:58:01 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:58:01 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 X-Sender: eu1250559@tele2.fr@d213-103-28-60.cust.tele2.fr Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:58:07 +0100 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6759 Date: 2004-12-04T19:58:07+01:00 List-Id: I am wondering why people try to make this accident an issue with the programming language and not what it was : a total failure in a software project management. The problem here was that the people who designed the IRS for Ariane 4 used an asumption on its trajectory in order to avoid a check that would have made the software tolerant to Ariane 5 trajectory (but why ?). This is at best ignoring a basic rule of engineering : expect your design to be used in a way you did not think about, because this is just what is going to happen. It applies to machinery as it applies to software. How many of us use "bugs" or "safety flaws" in our favorite applications in order to get things done ? The other problem was with the baffling lack of testing. Once more it comes from a management belief that experimentation is the root of all evil (takes time thus money). Engineers there have a strong responsibility for the existence of this belief. We tend to sell as a strong point that our design and analysis methods are so perfect that we can produce zero fault out of the box. This is simply forgeting that engineers, even supported by the most efficient methods and computing tools, are human beings, that systems are getting more complex than anything a human organisation can cope with, and that error is not only probable, it is frequent... Tackle those two issues and you avoid blowing up a brand new rocket and 4 satelittes. Regardless of the programming language.