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: 103376,5cb36983754f64da
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-22 00:35:36 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping
   language)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:49:13 +0200
Message-ID: <hdte80l8b1uk5ivr0ch4vh1ev65jplcmo0@4ax.com>
References: <d2k980picn6qiqh3hujq8mibr1sg928oqg@4ax.com>
 <mailman.38.1082553546.314.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <slrnc8cvgb.25m.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@rong.nt.ntnu.no>
 <mailman.40.1082560235.314.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.119)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082619335 9584116 I 212.79.194.119 ([77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7401
Date: 2004-04-22T09:49:13+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:30:23 +0100, Marius Amado Alves
<maa@liacc.up.pt> wrote:

>Of course the all 'virtual' control system would include reliability features.

It is not required by law, so it will not happen.

>Cannot be just a laptop sending emails to the breaks. There are lots of 
>feasible ways to attain a reliable system.

Yes

>SPARK comes to mind.

I have talks with some people in charge. Those (overwhelming minority)
who knows, are against Ada. (To be honest, they are also against C++.)
The majority is against any kind static analysis.

>For the 
>energy an array of redundant small batteries with capacity for say 1 minute 
>upon failure of one of them or of the big one(s). The time enough to stop the 
>car. Everything else would be redundant too. Etc. Mechanical systems fail 
>too. And these are more hard to make redundant. Well, just my expectations of 
>where the car industry should be now, or at least driving at.

My impression is that the reality is. Each penny to spare will be. The
least important issue is considered to be software. Software is
already used and will continue to be for patching hardware problems.

Legally, if you make a crash due to software malfunction, it will be
technically almost impossible to prove that in court. So you will be
responsible.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de