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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f948976d12c7ee33
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-24 06:21:18 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!199.45.49.37!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030611 Thunderbird/0.1a
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Boeing and Dreamliner
References: <mailman.4.1056169754.352.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <zN9Ja.2184$N%6.569@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3EF5F3F3.6000806@attbi.com>
 <e2e5731a.0306231813.35f7dd7a@posting.google.com>
 <3EF7EE09.7040505@attbi.com>
In-Reply-To: <3EF7EE09.7040505@attbi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <hfYJa.40656$hI1.17049@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:21:17 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.84.222.154
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1056460877 162.84.222.154 (Tue,
 24 Jun 2003 09:21:17 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:21:17 EDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39666
Date: 2003-06-24T13:21:17+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> The SRI requirements document was never updated for the Ariane 5, and as 
> I pointed out, the software had built in parameters that reflected 
> physical constants relating to the Ariane4.

The report says that these physical constraints were not described in the
documentation of the SRI software, and therefore the people who attempted
to reuse it had no clue that it would fail outside of such limits.

Do you think it's appropriate to write software like that and not tell
anyone about it? If the code was in C++ and the failure mode was a
buffer overflow, would you accept that argument, or would you be villifying
that language?