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=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,PLING_QUERY,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!news.netcologne.de!ramfeed1.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <82pr06yvqu.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <hucpv6$415$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <7sxhe3ad80de$.5yvimcxk9vjb.dlg@40tude.net> <op.vdtku21uxmjfy8@garhos>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 11:30:08 +0200
Message-ID: <ypk6qvjbpc0r$.1myv2wzo7cryh.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Jun 2010 11:30:08 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12ab06ab.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=oY93YBj?>B=NTD<CL>55K=ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1<`=YMgDjhg2fcXS1NNXb[:[6LHn;2LCV>[<mhadbfdU;B2aYjBjI5A4=FnaNb5YC_?
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12273
Date: 2010-06-05T11:30:08+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:16 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:00:07 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>> Another problem which worries me, is program changes. Let I modify the
>> program, the result is *another* program. How can I talk about the
>> "reliability" of what? Well, they share some code, but certainly we  cannot
>> consider source lines random. E.g. Let I modify 0,01% of the source of  90%
>> "reliable" program. I can tell nothing about whether the result is 90%
>> reliable +/- factor * 0.01%. This model just does not work.
> So this is chaotic (and there is a science which can talk about it too).

Do you mean chaos theory here? In that context reliability must be
redefined. Well, I doubt that chaos theory could efficiently handle that.
Although most of programs as well as software developing processes are
indeed cyclic/iterative. One could try to apply the theory there.

Boarding a plane would you be glad to hear that the software developing
process used for its flight system wasn't random? It was CHAOTIC! (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de