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: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Critique of Ariane 5 paper (finally!) Date: 1997/08/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 264587813 References: <33E503B3.3278@flash.net> <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> <33F20BCE.AB3@link.com> <33F22AD8.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <5stp3g$doe$1@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> <33F51BF6.49B7@flash.net> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <33F22AD8.41C67EA6@eiffel.com>, Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com says... > >It seems that the idea of using modern techniques to >improve software reliability shocks some people so much >that they will find no argument too low in their effort >to suppress it. Won't work. Obviously this is a red herring, since no one acts that way. But I suspect what we have here is (a) I have a wonderful method, look here ... (b) My goodness, you guys aren't using my method ... (c) The only explanation I can think of is the above paragraph (a) and (b) OK, but (c) is hardly a clear conclusion :-) No one is trying to suppress anything, they are just being skeptical of the claims you are making. If you do not expect such skepticism, then you really have eebn too walled up in the ivory tower! But really you perfectly well know enough of the real world to know that new techniques are a hard sell, if nothing else because most of them are over-hyped and either not nearly so useful as advertised, or useless, or even actively unhelpful. It is no surprise for people to be skeptical!