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: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-15 03:37:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-045-071.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:37:44 +0200 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-045-071.arcor-ip.net (145.254.45.71) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082025476 3271310 I 145.254.45.71 ([77047]) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7126 Date: 2004-04-15T12:37:44+02:00 List-Id: Alexander E. Kopilovich wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> >> As I said, the problem is that the marked, beloved or not, does not >> >> work well for software. >> > >> > Hm, but for what is works better? For science? For fims? For >> > literature? >> >> You have admitted that there is a problem. > > Certainly, there is a problem. And there isn't (and cannot be) a general > solution. In fact, there usually can't be a *solution* at all; instead of > solution there will (as a rule) be a struggle a class struggle (:-)) > - in some form, one or > another - and the result will usually be not a solution, but a decision or > win. In any case, it cannot be controlled by the market only, without some additional game rules imposed by a legislative body. This is what I meant. The society has two major instruments for intervening. One is liability, shoe makes are liable, why software produces should not be? Other is redistribution of wealth. I'd like to see our taxes spent rather on Ada than on windmills in the North Sea. >> >> This is the only reason why even less beloved government >> >> should intervene. Because software is essential to the future of >> >> humankind. >> > >> > So you think (applying the same logic) that government should intervene >> > in science, >> >> Doesn't it? Or do you think that space program is sponsored by Microsoft? > > "intervene" isn't a synonym for "sponsor"; when the government sponsors > then it is taxpayers who actually are sponsoring, but if the govenrment > *intervene* - it may well be the government indeed. > > As for government sponsoring, why do you (apparently) believe that the > government will chose right projects for its sponsoring more often than > wrong - not just fruitless, but harmful ones (harm may be easily produced > by unfair competition to good projects). Because to convince the government could be easier than to convince millions of customers, who according to you, only waiting for an opportunity to tear a cable from a computer and start to chew it. Cable chewers already made their choice! >> Ah, now I have understand your scientical theory of how it should be >> done. Ignorant, uneducated personnel will write rubbish being well paid >> for that. Highly qualified people in their spare time (after a day of >> sweeping streets, I suppose) will analyse their work for free. The rest >> is still a bit in clouds. Should they send their analysis to the >> managers? I am afraid that if that would distract managers from playing >> golf, they could get angry. > > Why send it those managers? Put it on website, send it to approriate > forum, and discuss with others interested in that topic. It is enough. It > will be mass-media who will translate the analysis to the managers of > appropriate managers, if there will be anything potentially interesting > and significant. So it is the mass media to find something significant. Oh they would, they already found green men, UFO. I see: next to the page of horoscopes, "how I removed race condition in my ignition controller". >> It seems that you do not understand the complexity of the system. > > It seems that you do not understand the complexity and abilities of free > people society regarding an investigation and testing of a relatively > stable system. > > I understand that the system is complex enough (although not at the > cutting edge of software complexity these times). But that complexity > shows itself mostly (assuming a reasonably proper development process) But this is the key point! I do not believe in magic. I do in technology. A technology is not based on craftworks. You cannot rely on them. You have to have a procedure which warranties you a definite level of quality on each stage of software development. Starting from writting the requirements (and BTW, choosing the programming language.) Presently this is not the case. And I do not see how mass media or even (unrealistic to get) open source could change that. Again the matter of interest is not the source, but the way it was produced. > in > the process of creation of the system - that is, in the first phase of the > lifecycle, while I'm talking about subsequent phases. > >> It cannot be analyzed afterwards. > > Why? Do you mean that in particular, car crashes will not be investigated > any more if it will seem probable that the software functionality (not > necessary a malfunction) was a contributing factor to the crash? Or you > mean that only specs will be accessible for such an investigation, even if > it the real behaviour of the car apparently contradicted the specs? You have a system with dozens processors running dozens of tasks. Some of them are hard real-time. These tasks are communicating over a number of field buses using protocols of different nature (time-triggered, with arbitration etc). Some of these tasks receive data from external sources (GPS, navigation data etc.) All this is from dozens of different vendors, written in C. Tell me, how you will analyze that. As an example, I know a car vendor, which for years is unable to find a bug in its *one* engine controller, running *one* task, causing sporadic stop. I saw some code of another vendor. It far beyond any imagination! >> To create such a system you have do it in the >> framework of a very strict development procedure. > > I said absolutely nothing about any involvement in the process of creating > such a system. Obviously, that process shouldn't and can't be made open to > strangers in any sense. > > I'm talking about post-release part of each car model lifecycle. Then it is much too late. Your observers would state: this is a mess. So what? Everybody knows that Windows is a mess. One need no sources for that. How does it help? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de