Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation

In article 
<845d7074-9d5d-4a50-8200-c31eaacfe8b5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Jun 20, 6:07 am, Bob Noel <ihatessppa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> > In article 
> > <083ff04d-201b-4be8-b6bd-612954a17...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > 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.