In article
,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 20, 6:07*am, Bob Noel
wrote:
In article
,
And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
software intensive system is adequately safe?

The same techniques that employed, in general, by experts to test
software.

And exactly what level of reliability do you think you'll need to have?

Note that the cost can rise enormously for fairly small increases in end
product reliability.

And so far we haven't said much about what the lawyers will bring to
your nifty new product. (Trust me, it won't be something to make you
emit small cries of joy.)

I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
find it, the odds of proving *anything useful are pretty small.

Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they
would indeed know what to look for. Also, peer-review (by other
experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software
(or any system).

You *really* don't know what is involved in developing verifiably
correct software systems, either in time or money.

It's *very* difficult and expensive.