Re: Crash for Armidillo
From: Greg Kuperberg (greg_at_conifold.math.ucdavis.edu)
Date: 08/13/04
- Next message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Crash for Armidillo"
- Previous message: Andrew Nowicki: "Re: Robotic Hubble mission would cost $2 billion"
- In reply to: Jack Sprat: "Re: Crash for Armidillo"
- Next in thread: Rand Simberg: "Re: Crash for Armidillo"
- Reply: Rand Simberg: "Re: Crash for Armidillo"
- Reply: Derek Lyons: "Re: Crash for Armidillo"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:16:53 +0000 (UTC)
In article <f7cc9417.0408120520.ebe1c8c@posting.google.com>,
Jack Sprat <sib101@gmail.com> wrote:
>Honestly, that's simply an absurd thing to post. If I'm developing
>medical software where lives are at stake, and I get a compile error,
>should I wring my hands in despair that I'm not taking it seriously
>enough?
Except that Armadillo's experience was not a software failure, it
was a hardware failure. If you build a medical imaging device that
accidentally switches to 100x full power and incinerates a test dummy,
then yes, it's time to re-evaluate your approach to the whole project.
It certainly isn't time to try to win a race against other development
teams at the eleventh hour.
-- /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis) / \ \ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ \/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
- Next message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Crash for Armidillo"
- Previous message: Andrew Nowicki: "Re: Robotic Hubble mission would cost $2 billion"
- In reply to: Jack Sprat: "Re: Crash for Armidillo"
- Next in thread: Rand Simberg: "Re: Crash for Armidillo"
- Reply: Rand Simberg: "Re: Crash for Armidillo"
- Reply: Derek Lyons: "Re: Crash for Armidillo"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]