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 Path: controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 11:58:44 +0200 Message-ID: References: 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 1083577464 19325225 I 212.79.194.119 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:198 Date: 2004-05-03T11:58:44+02:00 List-Id: On Sat, 1 May 2004 06:38:08 +0400 (MSD), "Alexander E. Kopilovich" wrote: >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. Like numerology >They often went in parallel, and very often helped each other >in various ways. For example, science helped engineering with basic laws >of physics, Engineering is a product of science. Without science it is called craftsmanship. >and engineering helped science with various tools and with >artificial objects that were suitable for scientific observations. >> > 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? Absolutely. To be prepared for concessions (science is an expensive thing) public has to be aware of what's going on. >> 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. Thus according to your logic they should be excluded from legal system. [Presumably a judge could not catch an object flying at great speed] >> >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. Deserve? First vendors should deserve a right to have users! >> 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. This would be vast majority, and very soon. >> >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, Yes, and in ancient Rome, the engineer should stand under his bridge during first tests. >but they have built software for several >decades only. Do you perceive significant difference between many centures >and several decades of experience? I see no difference. Do not build bridges if you cannot. If you believe that you can, be liable for the result. If you know that you cannot, but pretend that you can, then your place is in jail. >>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? No. I was talked about the cases where procedures has to be specified by law. In case of MS Word it would be enough to require a minimal level of liability, limited by the price of the product (in normal cases.) >> >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. The difference is that next time, other firm would pay more attention to quality. As you probably know, the most important goal of punishment is prevention of crime. >> 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. Nonsense. They are incompetent in software and need not to be competent. It is like to require them to be electricians and check insulation of all devices they use and be responsible if they fail to. >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. They will, because it is cheaper. >In that >your example I'd sue the hospital, which uses that system - for incompetency >with the tools it employs. The judge will answer you that according to your theory, it is solely you who was incompetent in choosing a hospital employing tools developed by incompetent vendors. -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de