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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.unit0.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: a new language, designed for safety !
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 14:52:12 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcc38fhhnvn.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <lmj8s6$hhp$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <3bf7907b-2265-4314-a693-74792df531d1@googlegroups.com>
 <wccha40e9zh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <lmpcc6$ivv$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <wccfvjj3rqf.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <51e9fd4f-e676-4d2f-9e21-1c782d71092e@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1402080722 20695 192.74.137.71 (6 Jun 2014 18:52:02
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 18:52:02 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ww7ewnO6S1zTGe9afOi40AczYuU=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20172
Date: 2014-06-06T14:52:12-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Boy, you completely misunderstood my point!  Possibly my fault;
perhaps I was unclear.

"Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net> writes:

> Currently in the popular press, General Motors ignition-switch recall
> has strong resemblance to Mr. Duff's picayune excessively-narrow
> definition of safety of a system.

I didn't define "safety of a system".

> So with only a modicum of respect for Mr. Duff's picayune definition
> of safety of a software system, ...

Nor did I define "safety of a software system".

You are mixing up "safe" as applied to programming language features,
and "safe" as in the real-world sense of preventing injury and death.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but the rest of your rant doesn't apply
to anything I actually said -- as if I advocate ignition keys that kill
(sheesh!).

Unsafe programming language features can cause injury or death
-- but only in safety critical systems.  (E.g. dangling dispatch
in Objective C won't kill anybody if the program is a word processor.)
But safe programming language features can cause injury or death, too
(in safety critical systems).  You see the difference?

- Bob