Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!andree
From: andree@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Do: Re: Mi: BTL takes the lead - (nf)
Message-ID: <4351@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Dec-83 05:35:45 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4351
Posted: Tue Dec  6 05:35:45 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Dec-83 01:17:44 EST
Lines: 33

#R:pucc-h:-36800:uokvax:5000036:000:1313
uokvax!andree    Dec  4 14:14:00 1983

/***** uokvax:net.politics / ucbesvax!notes /  7:08 pm  Nov 30, 1983 */
I think he should have been a little more forthright, even at the risk of
offending a larger segment of the CS community.  If he really doesn't
think that programmers should work on nuclear weapons systems, he should
*say* so--not criticize them when they propose order-of-magnitude improve-
ments in methodology.
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)
/* ---------- */

The impression I got was that Hoare was upset because Ada (tm)
should have been, but WAS NOT, an orders-of-magnitude
improvement in methedology.  Comments like `I don't want to be
on the same planet with ICMB's that have programmer-implemented
floating point traps' (that's a paraphrase - I don't have the
article in front of me.) I seem to recall comments along the lines of
ALGOLW/Pascal having been better for such work than Ada.

Whether or not programmers should work on such systems is another
question entirely, and calls for answering two related questions:

	1) Should ANYBODY work on such devices? If you think this
	this is morally bad, then the point is moot.
	2) If you aren't going to use software to guide them,
	what are you going to use?

If you have answers to number 2 (number one is obviously a moral
choice), I'd be interested in them.

	<mike