Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:12:46 -0800
To: Wesley Groleau et al.
From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.
Please see the change below; and I am happy that I do NOT have to
immediately dispose of my stock in Raytheon. Please let me know if Raytheon
actually does use C++ for something involving large numbers of human lives.
Sixty minutes last night (Sunday) had a section on General Motors and
station-wagon gas tanks. I believe one settlement was for over $30,000,000.
Life critical applications in C++ are a malpractice lawyer's dream
I might add that 99% of the employees at company can be completely virtuous,
professional etc. and there still can be a small group who can cause a
disaster. Please look at N. G. Leveson, Safeware, System Safety and
Computers, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA 412-413, 1995. The majority of the
employees of most of the organizations that suffered the catastrophes
described in the Safeware appendices were probably competent and careful
individuals. I do not believe that any organization has successfully
employed in the defense of a suit for damages the argument that the other
operations of the organization were safe. It only takes a small group of
reckless or uninformed individuals to create a catastrophe. The one
reassuring fact from Safeware is that none of the catastrophes described
involved a single coding error.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of W. Wesley Groleau x4923
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 6:00 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Another Ada vs. C++ fight (long)
From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.
There are two major disadvantages of C++. 1) The Java advertising machine
will kill it.
2) Any company because it is demonstrably negligent in using an unsafe
language, C++, will run a very significant risk for incurring punitive
damages when the inevitable catastrophe occurs. This is even stupider than
manufacturing silicon breast implants. I am sorry that the shareholders and
employees of companies are paying the salaries and providing other
compensation for a group of technologically incompetent managers.
Unfortunately, Dilbert is factual.
> The "trade study" I posted was not written by anyone at my site. I
> received it from someone in another state, and was very careful to censor
> anything that could identify the originating group. Please do not apply
> the Raytheon name to this rubbish.