![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
... On Jun 19, 9:54 pm, Bob Noel wrote: In article , Le Chaud Lapin wrote: ---------paragraph snipped---------- What makes you think that software engineering, or system engineering, has progressed to the point that a software intensive system would be developed "with proper discipline"? That's fair enough. Software, perhaps more than any other discpline, allows engineers to place themselves where they are most comfortable on the spectrum of intellectual discipline. However, there are some engineers out there. There is a young man in Nederlands, for example, whose work I have had a glimpse of. He has Ph.D. in crystallography, but is breadth of knowledge is very wide. His knowledge of mathematics and computer science is competitive with that of Ph.D's in computer science and mathematics. His style of engineering gives new meaning to the word "fastidious". I would think 15 people like him should be sufficient to tackle any software problem that might arise in the design of a PAV. I also know a few people who studied aero/astro at university. In any case, while process is important, the end result is most important. And the end result would be seen by many people, before the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. I would imagine that there would be people who would criticize the architecture for free. -Le Chaud Lapin- There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we are using to send these messages. Peter |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 20, 8:40*am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
In any case, while process is important, the end result is most important. *And the end result would be seen by many people, before the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. *I would imagine that there would be people who would criticize the architecture for free. -Le Chaud Lapin- There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we are using to send these messages. Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who authored it. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 20, 8:40?am, "Peter Dohm" wrote: In any case, while process is important, the end result is most important. ?And the end result would be seen by many people, before the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. ?I would imagine that there would be people who would criticize the architecture for free. -Le Chaud Lapin- There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we are using to send these messages. Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who authored it. Having your computer die while in the middle of writting a document, controlling a power plant, running a subway system, or flying an airplane are not events most people look upon as providing positive excitement to life. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 20, 11:35*am, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: On Jun 20, 8:40?am, "Peter Dohm" wrote: In any case, while process is important, the end result is most important. ?And the end result would be seen by many people, before the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. ?I would imagine that there would be people who would criticize the architecture for free. -Le Chaud Lapin- There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we are using to send these messages. Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who authored it. Having your computer die while in the middle of writting a document, controlling a power plant, running a subway system, or flying an airplane are not events most people look upon as providing positive excitement to life. Every machine can fail. What matters so much is not whether the machine is a computer or something else, but the probability of failure of that component, and the probability of failure of the overall system as a result. I read on regular basis about ICE's that failed for whatever reason. But people still use ICE's. One should look at the math of each situation and do what is necessary to make likelihood of system failure at least equivalent. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 20, 11:35?am, wrote: In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: On Jun 20, 8:40?am, "Peter Dohm" wrote: In any case, while process is important, the end result is most important. ?And the end result would be seen by many people, before the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. ?I would imagine that there would be people who would criticize the architecture for free. -Le Chaud Lapin- There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we are using to send these messages. Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who authored it. Having your computer die while in the middle of writting a document, controlling a power plant, running a subway system, or flying an airplane are not events most people look upon as providing positive excitement to life. Every machine can fail. True but irrelevant. What matters so much is not whether the machine is a computer or something else, but the probability of failure of that component, and the probability of failure of the overall system as a result. And establishing that probablility is generally an extremely expensive process. I read on regular basis about ICE's that failed for whatever reason. But people still use ICE's. Irrelevant One should look at the math of each situation and do what is necessary to make likelihood of system failure at least equivalent. Already been done. It is called FAA certification requirements. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Mel[_2_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 8th 07 01:37 PM |
FA: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Derek | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 3rd 07 02:17 AM |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jeff[_5_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 1st 07 12:45 PM |
FA: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jon[_4_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 24th 07 01:13 AM |
FA: 3 ADVANCED AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Larry[_3_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 6th 07 02:23 AM |