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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,3488d9e5d292649f
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-22 14:38:43 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language
Date: 22 Feb 2003 16:38:40 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <d0Ln1GoO$xli@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <f2rb5v8020kkvq6tsf0uqg91pfbk9errs7@4ax.com>
 <E65DA1BAEE8B3C52.29B16126289D882E.5EB549036373C4E5@lp.airnews.net>
 <1045856952.418085@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <8C8A06BCD0B3376D.01247F5E9E2652B0.5BB268703A0C3D85@lp.airnews.net>
 <1045863617.243086@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <20030222.7982838.ABFA@mojaveg.iwvisp.com>
 <828DE23B3B00B2F4.378802739B5A1D47.F69B281EC119A34F@lp.airnews.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1045953415 15416 192.135.80.34 (22 Feb 2003
 22:36:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 22:36:55 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4425 comp.lang.ada:34444
Date: 2003-02-22T16:38:40-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <828DE23B3B00B2F4.378802739B5A1D47.F69B281EC119A34F@lp.airnews.net>, "John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net> writes:
> "Everett M. Greene" <mojaveg@mojaveg.iwvisp.com> wrote in message
> news:20030222.7982838.ABFA@mojaveg.iwvisp.com...

>> One has to consider the economics of the situation.  Is perfection
>> a requirement or just a target?  There is a point of diminishing
>> returns beyond which it isn't worth the time and expense to ensure
>> perfection.

> You really don't want a previously-undiscovered bug in your security box to
> hand a Top Secret / compartmented message to someone who is not allowed to
> receive it.  You REALLY don't want to find out that it has been doing that
> for over a year.  In this application, you have to KNOW that there are no
> bugs in the software.  You have to PROVE it.  Testing just isn't good enough
> to get you there.

And based on that description, the decision regarding the need for
perfection was made by the people in charge of the funding.