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: 103376,1e3f2eac5c026e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-27 17:47:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference) Date: 27 Dec 2003 17:47:11 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo> <3FE991DD.5060301@noplace.com> <3FEA5C82.8050309@noplace.com> <3FEB047A.1040100@noplace.com> <3FED9286.5050800@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1072576031 19498 127.0.0.1 (28 Dec 2003 01:47:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:47:11 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3867 Date: 2003-12-27T17:47:11-08:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote in message news:<3FED9286.5050800@noplace.com>... > A compiler is probably not so dangerous as a rocket engine control, but > failure to pass validation because some "trivial" change had some subtle > problem that the original programmer didn't understand is a) expensive > and b) embarrassing to a company's reputation. That's why on important > software there is no such thing as a "trivial" change. Well, I've been involved with important software, and I've seen many trivial changes to it. Of course even trivial changes need to be done carefully, and of course even trivial changes should be tested, and of course trivial changes should not be done at the last minute before an important release -- but that does not mean they are not trivial. Changing an output format from three to four significant digits, for example, is trivial by any reasonable standard. Hence your lofty-sounding pronouncement above is nonsense. I fully understand the need to be careful with software, but there is a point where you can be too careful. If a change can be implemented (albeit inefficiently) in 30 minutes by one person, and if avoiding the change will inconvenience programmers and clutter code for the next ten years, you're past that point. For Pete's sake, don't be paralyzed with fear over nothing.