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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f948976d12c7ee33 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-24 07:34:47 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!213.200.246.247!not-for-mail From: Vinzent Hoefler Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Boeing and Dreamliner Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:33:07 +0200 Organization: JeLlyFish software Message-ID: References: <3EF5F3F3.6000806@attbi.com> <20619edc.0306232122.598389dd@posting.google.com> <3EF83EB5.6020204@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.246.247 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1056465286 27634165 213.200.246.247 (16 [175126]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39671 Date: 2003-06-24T16:33:07+02:00 List-Id: Hyman Rosen wrote: [Arian5 software reuse] >But the original designers didn't leave any indication behind that the >software they had written would fail in such a modified usage. Interesting. AFAIK there existed proofs that led to the decision that four out of seven variables could have their range checks turned off. >board. Had they documented the limits on trajectories, teh Ariane 5 >team would have known that the code needed to be re-examined. So the Ariane5 team didn't even reconsider the existing proofs for the turned off range checks? >Since when do Ada advocates favor testing over documentation? No. But the documentation for Ariane 4 didn't really fit the one for Ariane 5, did it? So what the hell did they expect? Vinzent.