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: 2003-06-29 09:10:07 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!msunews!not-for-mail
From: "Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Boeing and Dreamliner
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:06:31 -0400
Organization: Michigan State University
Message-ID: <bdn2sh$2it8$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
References: <mailman.4.1056169754.352.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <zN9Ja.2184$N%6.569@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3EFC6FC2.B96DAEA4@adaworks.com>
 <1056731513.272294@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <e2e5731a.0306271633.20140ba6@posting.google.com>
 <k2wLa.21663$N%6.3746@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: arctic.cse.msu.edu
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39892
Date: 2003-06-29T12:06:31-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:k2wLa.21663$N%6.3746@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> The Araine 4 programmers exactly reproduced the Y2K problem in microcosm.

This is a bad analogy.  No need to attempt to drag in the Y2K herring.

> They wrote code that took advantage of limited input range, and sent it
out
> into the world with insufficient protection against the future.

All constraint based bugs fall into this category.

> It was
> perfectly good in the same way as two digit years.

I take it you mean
"Y2k code is perfectly good for the years 1900 to 1999"
is similar to
"The Ariane 4's SRI software is perfectly good for the Ariane 4."

which is similar to saying that both systems are partially correct in some
sense.
You must have a distorted the meaning of the phase "perfectly good in
<context>" which has been used.  You seem to think that the phrase means
"perfectly good in general" a phrase that is of course false for all
programs.  Note the difference:

"Y2k code is perfectly good."
is similar to
"The Ariane 4's SRI software is perfectly good."

They are both similar in that they are both false statements.