Re: [SystemSafety] Logic

Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:11:05 +0100

Bertrand Ricque
Program Manager
Optronics and Defence Division
Sights Program
Mob : +33 6 87 47 84 64
Tel : +33 1 59 11 96 82


From: systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:58 PM
To: Peter Bernard Ladkin; knight_at_xxxxxx Cc: systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Logic


obviously I agree with much of what you say. But I am discussing with people who believe that we

constitute an exception to much of it.

I think we are talking about different things. Research projects need software rapid prototypes to support investigation in areas such as AI and robotics. These are "throw-away" prototypes that should never make it into production and usually don't.

I am talking about software products that are part of engineered computer systems which will subject others (possibly the general public) to risk. Higher education has a responsibility to prepare professional engineers to perform that engineering. That education needs to make it clear that:

In response to the comment from Les Chambers:

"We must find a way to bring formal methods out of the lab and into general use."

I generally agree. But I note that we have industrial strength systems such as SPARK Ada, industrial scope use of such systems such as the NATS iFACTS system, and substantial evidence from Peter Amey and his colleagues that applying such technology is cheaper and better than the informal alternatives.

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Sun Feb 16 2014 - 18:11:25 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:06 CEST