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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f948976d12c7ee33 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-29 13:45:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!chi1.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny02.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030611 Thunderbird/0.1a X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Boeing and Dreamliner References: <3EFC6FC2.B96DAEA4@adaworks.com> <1056731513.272294@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3EFF2F6D.3793971@adaworks.com> In-Reply-To: <3EFF2F6D.3793971@adaworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:45:16 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.84.196.85 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny02.gnilink.net 1056919516 162.84.196.85 (Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:45:16 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:45:16 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39903 Date: 2003-06-29T20:45:16+00:00 List-Id: Richard Riehle wrote: > And those issues directly support the folly of even thinking about using > C++ for this aircraft. Unsurprisingly, I disagree. You're talking about a situation where every arithmetic operation in the code was carefully scrutinized. I'm sure that in the cases were protection was left in the Ariane 4 code it did not consist of allowing an Ada exception to be raised on overflow, but rather coding in such a way that a correct numeric result would be produced. I don't see why such scrutiny would not result in equally safe C++ code. > I am also confident that, pressures from resume-builders > notwithstanding, they will realize the value of using contemporary Ada, > with its excellent record for software safety, instead of a language so > characterized by unpredictability that they could never be sure that some > undetected behavior might manifest itself long after even the best of > testing has been completed. I obviously disagree with you about the suitability of C++, but I certainly agree that Ada is a fine choice as well. As for resume building, I would just let such people do their building elsewhere.