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: 2004-04-16 04:37:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-039-235.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: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:36:38 +0200 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-039-235.arcor-ip.net (145.254.39.235) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082115425 4196366 I 145.254.39.235 ([77047]) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7200 Date: 2004-04-16T13:36:38+02:00 List-Id: Alexander E. Kopilovich wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> The society has two major instruments for intervening. One is liability, >> shoe makes are liable, why software produces should not be? > > Because the public did not want (so far) to triple (at best) software > prices by involving lawyers in the detailed specification of every > software product. 1. Where these figures come from? 2. Who wants to ask public? They had been asked before, they shown absolute inability to make reasonable choice. > There is well-established tradition for shoes, for centures, both for > their production and their use. So common sense is well-formed regarding > shoes, and enough independent experts are always (and easily) available - > again, both for production and for use of shoes. Common sense is not formed, it either exists or not. > But we still do not have enough tradition for software products - neither > for their production nor for their use. We have little common sense > regarding software, and certainly not enough independent and at the same > time competent experts. You need no experts to analyze the software. Requirements and terms of liability are pretty easy to set and check. You need no spectral analysis to determine whether shoes peel off. > And all above is only one side of the problem. Another side looks even > worse: significant part of software is a cutting edge in one or another > dimension, and therefore it naturally can't guarantee its performance in > every particular circumstances. So, general liability will severely impede > progress, and this for many applications overweights eventual losses. Note > that it may be true even for software that may directly endanger life of a > human person. The only edge MS-Office cuts is consuming as much memory as any new generation of computers might have. Who needs *this* progress? Concede, you get this argument from Bill Gates, who said that separating Explorer and Windows would stop the progress. (:-)) Very convincing. > For a change, you may think also why so many advertisments (not > necessarily related to sofware) aren't liable -;) Because they are for free! No pay, no play. >> to convince the government could be easier than to convince millions >> of customers, > > Sometimes it may be true, but in this case it may be true also for your > competitor. Why goverment should help Ada and not some other language - > should it depend upon links and bribes and hot political issues? Actually, > when you appeal to the government for such purposes, you just try to > exploit another market - a narrow one, for privileged parties only. and more competent ones. > You > can't have any strong reasons to believe that Ada will be a winner in > this, rather opaque market. Better not to try to shift the competition > (for resources) there. Again, there are issues essential to the existence of our civilization. Software development becomes one of them. Ada is just an indicator of how things are going on. > Maintainance or even major overhaul of already established language is not > the same thing as create an entirely new one with some unprecedented > qualities. As Ada's experience shows, if government decides to spend > resources on a programming language, it will be probably not just Better > Ada, but entirely new language, which may be far from Ada as much as Ada > was far from Jovial. Let it be a better language, I have no problem with that. >> 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. > > Very well, but those warranting procedures aren't God-sent, they must be > crafted... and sad to say, according to your own position, you cannot > carelessly rely upon them. So, according to you, it is better to have *nothing*. >> 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. > > Surely nothing external can change that. Come on, to sell a new car model, you have to get tonns of papers. > But again, I'm talking not about > intervention into development process, but about post-release stage, where > development is completed, but investigations by external parties must be > possible. That will not happen. But, again, it would be rather useless. >> Again the matter of interest is not the source, but the way it was >> produced. > > For investigation of a malfunction (or crash) of a released product the > sources is primary thing... the way it was produced may be of some > interest, but it is definitely secondary. Nope. I need not study the laws of Newzeland, because I know the "procedure", and I expect it to be democratic and respecting human rights. > You dream to prevent all errors (without magic -:) , while I do not > believe that this dream may come true - at all levels at the same time. If that will not become true, we as humankind, will simply commit suicide. >> 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. > > Poor vendor, he can't reach me -:) Did he try to create a simulator? Of what? Motor simulator? Roller dynamometer? Climatic chamber? Autopilot? >> I saw some code of >> another vendor. It far beyond any imagination! > > Perhaps, not *any* imagination. I think you mean "expectations", well, > "bad expectations" rather than "imagination". Consider code using no subprograms. People believed that they are inefficient. (:-)) So anything to be repeated was cut and pasted. For the same reason (I suppose), they used only global variables! Do you really think that *this* kind of code should be analyzed at all? >> > > 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? > > They need not to evaluate the whole system, whether it is a mess or not. > Each of them may have a paricular, very local interest, and it may well > happen, that the cause if the trouble is indeed reasonably local. It is a dangerous delusion to think this way. Compare it with somebody reasoning in early 50s: as soon as +,-,*,/ implemented and tested, there is no problem with any program. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de