🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul24.175452.16791@wpi.WPI.EDU>, entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
|> No, It takes a complete idiot not to include a hardware based lock
|> against this type of accident. Lets hope microwave ovens arn't as carelessly
|> constructed. It is a fact that a large system will have defects, it is the 
|> fault of the hardware designers that the software was allowed to to issue
|> commands that could have been verified as incorrect with a single TTL chip.
|> 
|> [stuff deleted]
|> -- 
|> Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true.            ------  0<p<1  
First, it is not the hardware designer's fault for not catching an error.  
Second,  modern designs are not using TTL chips; they are too slow.  The current
modern design is done in the VLSI environment.  Third, by placing the blame on
the hardware, you are admitting that there is a flaw in the software that 
should have been corrected. 

The common example of life critical software has been medical equipment.  There
are other areas that are currently  being researched.  There is the automatic
steering car being develpoed by Volkswagen, software targeted for space, 
avionic software, industrial process software controlling coal, gas, and nuclear
powered generating plants.  While these seem to be esoteric and far removed
from your daily life, there is still a big potential loss of human lives if the
software was not written correctly.

Writing software is a science.  The art to programming comes from another angle.
A number can be incremented in defferent ways; I can do it in main memory, or
I can do it in an autoincrement fasion (usually, depends on the processor).
Which one is best depends on the situation at hand.  THAT is the art to 
programming, not actually writing the code itself.  The art is knowing how to
tune a program without having to change the semantics of the code; it is taking
advantage of the subtilties of the language.

andy
wessels@thor.cc.nd.edu