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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,f66d11aeda114c52
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Critique of Ariane 5 paper (finally!)
Date: 1997/08/12
Message-ID: <dewar.871389016@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 263854607
References: <33E503B3.3278@flash.net> <dewar.870870888@merv>
 <33E8FC54.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <33E9B217.39DA@flash.net>
 <33EA5592.5855@flash.net> <33EB4935.167EB0E7@eiffel.com>
 <33EB754E.446B9B3D@eiffel.com> <33EBE46D.2149@flash.net>
 <33EF9487.41C67EA6@eiffel.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-08-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bertrand says

<<As convincingly as I could, my colleagues and I
have explained: why in our view
software technology crucially requires the systematic use of
Design by Contract; why Design by Contract is a
necessary condition to avoid more Ariane-like failures;
and what is missing in this respect in such approaches
as Java, Ada, C++, IDL.>>

Your argument at *best* says that DBC might have been a *sufficient*
condition for avoiding the Ariane failure. Even there, it seems over-facile
and rather academic, and does not seem to understand fully the exact nature
of the Ariane problem.

But to make the jump from sufficient to necessary is completely without basis,
and can only be regarded as advertising puffery. To prove this you would have
to show that no other method can succeed, an impossible burden.

You have to be very careful in not making excessive claims, especially
when it is clear that you are not disinterested in the claim!