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
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f039470e8f537101
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-22 02:02:56 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!news.mailgate.org!nntp.infostrada.it!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.CH!not-for-mail
From: Vinzent Hoefler <ada.rocks@jlfencey.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ariane5 FAQ
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:00:48 +0200
Organization: JeLlyFish software
Message-ID: <bfiujt$f9lj1$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <mailman.26.1058753354.24167.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <1058799152.775376@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfh2gb$eeiv4$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058810510.375902@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhaed$e786b$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058813341.841940@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhe55$eqglr$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <1058816605.566685@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <bfhjjr$eftm1$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <AY0Ta.14787$0F4.7550@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
Reply-To: v.hoefler@acm.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.ch (213.200.246.247)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1058864573 16045665 213.200.246.247 (16 [175126])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40616
Date: 2003-07-22T11:00:48+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen wrote:

>Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>> Well, one way or another - it did. It did exactly what is was supposed
>> to do.
>
>No matter how many times people on this newsgroup repeat this,
>it will not become true.

It doesn't have to become true because it already is. :-P
=20
>The code was written on the assumption
>that a certain parameter would never reach a particular value.

And that this would not happen in normal operation was perfectly true
for the Ariane 4.

>Its behavior under the contrary assumption was left unspecified.

No, AFAIK it wasn't. IIRC the system was specified to shut down and
send diagnostic data in this case. And that's what it did.

>It certainly did not do "what it was supposed to do" once the
>assumption was violated.

It did *exactly* what it was designed to do.

>The system pretended that a hardware
>error had happened.

Yes and if this would have happened on the Ariane 4 system, it would
have been exactly that - a hardware error.
And that's the whole point: The system was never designed for the
Ariane 5.


Vinzent.

--=20
Parents strongly cautioned  --  this  posting  is  intended for mature
audiences  over  18.  It  may  contain some material that many parents
would not find suitable for children and may include intense violence,
sexual situations, coarse language and suggestive dialogue.