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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	PLING_QUERY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b6d862eabdeb1fc4
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_=28Hibou57=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:55:00 +0200
Organization: Ada At Home
Message-ID: <op.vdru9yi8xmjfy8@garhos>
References: <jhaJn.4661$z%6.1650@edtnps83>
 <0e88de66-128c-48fd-9b9f-fdb4357f318a@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
 <XogJn.4313$Z6.4310@edtnps82> <tarujgrysngw.1ln7awtgq3otu.dlg@40tude.net>
 <m8jJn.4317$Z6.1405@edtnps82> <op.vc40fcksule2fv@garhos>
 <22aKn.4575$Z6.3399@edtnps82>
 <8d5dbf6e-81fe-4419-aaad-118921a47b4a@q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
 <htc3e7$sjf$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <hHgKn.4608$Z6.3902@edtnps82>
 <82ocg5r7w5.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <18iz0ye51c3rk$.1wc5rwelax6hr$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <82wrusagcz.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <op.vdpelx1mxmjfy8@garhos>
 <82fx1317yh.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <1cic9uxywxe5q$.1txc2yridbly9.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gPTBNfhtfsEpv8wDIvwlLw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.53 (Win32)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11276
Date: 2010-06-04T12:55:00+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:40:19 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  =

<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a =E9crit:
>> I mean the software in embedded computers on an airplane is more
>> reliable than the mechanical components in the airplane.
>
> I wonder how would you (or anyone else) substantiate this claim. The
> technical problem is that mechanical components faults have a stochast=
ic
> nature. I.e. you have a certain probability of fault (due to physical
> processes involved in production and function of the given component).=
 On
> the contrary, a software fault is not stochastic, neither in its  =

> production
> nor at run-time. A given bug is either here or not. There is no  =

> probability
> associated with it. Isn't it comparing apples and oranges?
This does not invalidate statistics on source of failures (OK to say thi=
s  =

can explains these statistics).

-- =

There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.