Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)

["Alexander E. Kopilovich" <aek@VB1162.spb.edu>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov write:

> >But I'd like to note here that traditionally (until relatively recently)
> >science was about acquiring stable knowledge and understanding, and not about
> >redoing the world.
>
> That's not science yet. A true science begins when it gives birth to
> engineering.

You should not write "true science" there, you should write "my science"
instead. And then you could add "tomorrow belongs to me".

As for traditional science, it was entirely separate activity from
engineering. They often went in parallel, and very often helped each other
in various ways. For example, science helped engineering with basic laws
of physics, and engineering helped science with various tools and with
artificial objects that were suitable for scientific observations.

> The piracy is not God-given, as you are trying to convince me.
> It is just a result.

If you depend on use of religion-related terminology then you'd better to know
more about relations between God's actions, causes and results in classical
monotheistic theologies.

> > there are international organizations and national organization in various
> >countries (some of then actually are international - like ACM and IEEE)
> >dealing with software as well. What else you want? Are you participating in
> >at least one of those organizations?
>
> Can you remember the last time CNN mentioned IEEE in its news block?
> UN-bureaucrats are aired each day.

So your understanding of democracy implies that any substantial influence,
even in complex scientific/technical matters, can be performed only by bodies,
of which general public is well aware through mass-media?

> >> But what I actually meant, is that if there is a serious defect (such
> >> as periodic crash, data corruption etc),
> >
> >But if that periodic crash is caused by irregular malfunction of some hardware
> >(preferably the motherboard) or underlying OS or combination of both? How
> >court will investigate such cases?
>
> Vendors are liable. They can sue other vendor.

Lawyers Chorus: Very good, one more suit.

> >but also its omnipresence: software as a general
> >notion is bigger and more powerful (however vague) than any legal system.
>
> Human beings are even bigger and powerful.

No. Software accumulates human knowledge, decision abilities and experience
- over very different professionals and over time. Generally, it can be much
easily targetted on a particular problem than a human collective.

> Neither software nor legal
> system can even emerge without humans. Yet criminal law exists.

Airplanes could not emerge without humans, but they are much faster than
humans, and they can fly. Trains also could not emerge without humans, and
they also are much faster than humans, but trains can't fly and airplanes
are much faster than trains.

> >I am against liability for software. Liability should be based
> >on intended use of the product
>
> That's my point

I'm not sure of that - because I think that only a small minority of intended
uses deserve liability for vendors.

> Depending on application area, the state has right to require definite
> procedures to be applied for software construction. This is a common
> practice. There is no reason to reinvent wheel here.

That may be true for some application domains, but only for small minority of
them.

> >And it certainly should not be based
> >on those popular notions.
>
> Those are not notions, but knowledge. It is *known* that bridges shall
> not be built without analysis of statics etc. Again, there is no
> reason, why it should be otherwise in case of software.

It is quite obvious (and was said many times by various people) that humans
have built bridges for many centures, but they have built software for several
decades only. Do you perceive significant difference between many centures
and several decades of experience?

>If you say that software cannot be designed in a safe way, then it is
>another story. In such cases it has to be forbidden in this area.
>Remeber, we are talking about special application areas threatening
>human life.

It is new turn for me - I did not suppose that we are talking specifically
about those special application areas. Why so we *both* mentioned MS Word?
Is its application area threatening human life?

Actually there are plenty application domains where vendor's liability is
justfified - not only those that can directly threaten human life; but it is
still a small minority of already established set of specific (vs. broad)
application domains.

> >In other words, liability should not mention
> >software at all - at least before the legal definition of the term "software"
> >will be approved (and when such a definition will be available it will be
> >possible, and probably easy, to move the product outside of this definition).
>
> This is absolutely wrong. If software determines functionality of
> product to say 90%, how one can avoid mentioning it?
>
> Consider a bed-side monitoring system for resuscitation departments.
> Should a patient die because of software crash, who would be liable?

I can't see a difference (for a user, that is either the patient or hospital)
between a software crash or hardware malfunction in that system.

> Let me be a vendor. I would make a box and let it be certified for
> medical use. Then I would contract a third party company of hackers to
> write some funky Web-based application for it. Next I would sell the
> box and a CD with it. Now, I suppose, the market should select
> patients choosing hospitals, that do not buy my system. Right?

My answer for that is very simple: hospitals and physicians must understand
their tools. And I hope they do, as a rule. Probably they will not buy a
lancet that is boxed with radio-set for use them simultaneously. In that
your example I'd sue the hospital, which uses that system - for incompetency
with the tools it employs.




Alexander Kopilovich                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia