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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!weretis.net!feeder2.news.weretis.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Software Quality in Science
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:08:11 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1002151103550.17315@Bluewhite64.example.net>
References: 
 <1198a288-b013-45a8-907f-7fe227e6294e@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
 <04185bf3-f83a-4fbe-b380-c6d8aa4105e6@w27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:10:27 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.motzarella.org; posting-host="kheEuXGHhE2Z5eF1gAST+A";
	logging-data="14364"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ZLgz2mGHxPZBOCkq9NLHCn/YuXTttSCsLWoOJFAZx5w=="
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
In-Reply-To: 
 <04185bf3-f83a-4fbe-b380-c6d8aa4105e6@w27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uWO+KQtrOiFLBWtIYTyh2aByfV0=
X-X-Sender: Colin_Paul@Bluewhite64.example.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9221
Date: 2010-02-15T11:08:11+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Jerry sent:

|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Here is the link in the Guardian article to the original work:       |
|                                                                      |
|http://www.leshatton.org/Documents/Texp_ICSE297.pdf                   |
|                                                                      |
|It appears that this work was done in the 1990s. The paper is actually|
|fairly entertaining to read, if for nothing else how scary it is. Here|
|is a choice comment, about a commercial program for use in the nuclear|
|engineering industry:                                                 |
|                                                                      |
|"This package climbed to an awe-inspiring 140 weighted static faults  |
|per 1000 lines of code, and in spite of the aspirations of its        |
|designers, amounted to no more than a very expensive random number    |
|generator.""                                                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

I am a nuclear scientist, and I confirm that software used for
supposedly simulating nuclear reactions is dangerous. For example,
HTTP://HyperNews.SLAC.Stanford.edu/HyperNews/geant4/get/phys-list/545.html

Nuclear electricity should be illegal.

|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"And this comment which addresses the use of Ada:                     |
|                                                                      |
|"In C, note that function prototypes were well used only around 60% of|
|the time and as a result, interface faults accounted for about 24% of |
|the total. In other words, if function prototypes were mandated in all|
|C functions, 24% of all serious faults would disappear.  The          |
|computational scientist should not use this as an argument in favour  |
|of C++ or Ada in which they are mandated. A large number of new       |
|failure modes result from this action, which lack of space prohibits  |
|further discussion here. The net result of changing languages appears |
|to be that the overall defect density appears to be about the same,   |
|(Hatton 1997). In other words, when a language corrects one           |
|deficiency, it appears to add one of its own.""                       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

Why did that entertain you?