3 ms·
Possibly; I don't work for Boeing or their subcontractor. But I was getting at more of the general sense that as aircraft become more and more computerized we
by na85 7y ago
Possibly; I don't work for Boeing or their subcontractor. But I was getting at more of the general sense that as aircraft become more and more computerized we need more rigour and standardization of the sort that gave rise to Ada, and less of the aerospace equivalent of hacking things together in perl.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- crucini 7y agoWhile I understand the instinct, there is a flip side. A while back Lutz Prechelt posed the phonecode problem, inviting solutions in multiple languages. While he didn't specify error handling, the Perl solutions were on average better at error handling than the compiled language solutions.
- mk89 7y agoI think you are referring to [0]. Thanks a lot for sharing this, it's quite interesting! [0]: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/inst/ag-se/teaching/V-EMPIR-2011/14_quasi_experiment.pdf http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/inst/ag-se/teaching/V-EMPIR-2011...
- kragen 7y agoI would say we need more real rigor, of the kind that gave us qmail and seL4, and less fake rigor, of the kind that gave us Ada and inevitably proceeds from standardization. Standardization means less autonomy, which generally means that the opinions of prestigious people are imposed on everyone else. This can be good for intellectual rigor at first if your social pecking order is based on having sound opinions, like St. Augustine, but if it's based on anything else, standardization is an intellectual disaster from the start. And of course standardization prevents intellectual progress, always and everywhere, which is how Galileo ended up under house arrest.