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,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6b24e52e7dcae753 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-02 12:13:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!skynet.be!freenix!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Software Liability Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:12:09 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin-gw.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1025637182 40097 137.194.161.4 (2 Jul 2002 19:13:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Envelope-From: rleif@rleif.com X-Envelope-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26814 Date: 2002-07-02T12:12:09-07:00 From: Bob Leif To: W D Tate et al. I e-mailed Mr. Brown that, in light of Ada and associated software engineering technology, his argument was fallacious. -----Original Message----- From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org] On Behalf Of W D Tate Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 5:54 AM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: Software Liability "Robert C. Leif" wrote in message news:... [snip] > > NEW YORK (Reuters) - Software bugs are not just annoying or > inconvenient. They're expensive. > According to a study by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National > Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the bugs and glitches cost > the U.S. economy about $59.5 billion a year. [snip] > If software makers were held liable, the cost to consumers would rise > dramatically, said Marc E. Brown, a partner at the Los Angeles law firm > of McDermott, Will & Emery. > This is the same apocalyptic argument that industry made wrt complying with environmental regulations in the U.S. History, however, demonstrated that these regulations compelled corporations to find new efficiencies, eliminate wastestreams &/or inefficient operations which ultimately led to lower costs and, in some instances, a competitive advantage. What this attorney appears to be suggesting (implicitly) is that companies enjoy lower costs (i.e., life-cycle) for pushing out poorly designed & implemented software. IMO many companies don't have a first clue as to what their "real" costs would be if they were to design/implement software that held up after n-generations. Examples... A well-established commercial numerical analysis package has had numerous "math" related bugs introduced with each subsequent release - bugs that did not exist in prior versions that performed the same mathematical operations. Its gotten to the point that Jack Crenshaw, PhD,(www.embedded.com) has strongly recommended using a version of this software at least 3 to 4 versions earlier. I would be a bit concerned if my "cadillac" product were exhibiting these kinds of persistent problems with every new release. In a company I used to work for the entire codebase was written in C++. After many years, it had reached a point where only 1 or 2 individuals were permitted to "touch" the "core" for fear of breaking something. Mind you this is a company that is #1 in its market (sales ~ $200-300 million/year), serves an industry where security is a "really big deal" and "bugs" cost their end-users "real" money. This company has always had a structured software development process. In 2001, this same company was forced to do a complete re-write of the codebase in order to achieve a "maintainable" state. In either case, its difficult to imagine how one can separate the life-cycle issue (and its associated costs) from the potential "liability" issue. So if we talk about costs, let's compare apples and apples please.