Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!wrdis01!gatech!udel!rochester!kodak!uupsi!sunic!news.funet.fi!jyu.fi!sakkinen
From: sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Provocative statement
Message-ID: <1991Apr25.133216.20855@jyu.fi>
Date: 25 Apr 91 13:32:16 GMT
References: <9776@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: sakkinen@jytko.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen)
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
Lines: 28

In article <9776@castle.ed.ac.uk> cmb@castle.ed.ac.uk (Colin Brough) writes:
> ...
>In article 2355 of comp.parallel, Steven Ericsson Zenith
><zenith@ensmp.fr> writes:
>> ...
>> And that's the point most Europeans don't understand. Engineer's don't
>> build bridges to fine tolerances - as suggested by the Computer Science
>> formal methods community. They use over-kill in the main. Materials and
>> designs proven to work from experience and then some!! Very few bridges
>> fall down. The number that do is a tolerable expediency.
>
>The interesting point is not so much the difference between Europe and
>the US, but rather the 'over-kill' approach.  Do people think this is
>one way in which 'software engineering' will progress in the future?

If the bridge designer wants to have a greater security factor,
(s)he can specify a little thicker steel and cables than suggested
by standard calculations.  The software designer cannot say:
"This system has to be really safe and secure, so let's put in
30% more code!"

Markku Sakkinen
Department of Computer Science and Information Systems
University of Jyvaskyla (a's with umlauts)
PL 35
SF-40351 Jyvaskyla (umlauts again)
Finland
          SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative network address)