Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!oberon!sm.unisys.com!psivax!woof
From: woof@psivax.UUCP (Harold C. )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: gcc vs. commercial C compiler (Sun's)
Message-ID: <2413@psivax.UUCP>
Date: 2 Feb 89 17:38:08 GMT
References: <3627@cbnews.ATT.COM> <1324@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <3684@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: woof@psivax.UUCP (Harold C. ( Hal ) Schloss)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 24

In article <3684@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
>I'm a very conservative person when it comes to
>taking certain types of risks.  Frankly, I'm not satisfied with the state
>of software technology well enough to be comfortable with a pacemaker
>being run by one.  Okay, some things just won't exist without software . . .

Actually choosing pacemakers as the medical device to discuss here is
interesting. The current state of the art in pacemakers is such that almost all
of the ones being implanted today in the U.S. depend upon software in the
"pacemaker programmer" to set internal pacemaker registers properly. Most of
the newest pacemakers have microprocessors in them. So if you are really
uncomfortable with the idea that your life may depend on software in the
pacemaker system, I suggest you don't get one implanted as that is the only
way you will be able to avoid it. (As the things stand now, most pacemaker
system failures are due to hardware problems. These problems generally cause
the pacemaker to cease pacing, which is only fatal if the underlying condition
is fatal. Even if the software is infallible, I can't imagine any way to rule
out all hardware failures.)

-- 
	Hal Schloss	 Pacesetter Systems Inc., A Siemens Company
 {sdcrdcf|ttidca|hacgate|nrcvax|jplpro|hoptoad|csun|quad1|harvard|csufres|
  bellcore|uunet|rdlvax|ashtate|siemens|cetacea|dbase|otto|logico}!psivax!woof
  ARPA: woof@psivax.psi.siemens.com or woof@rdlvax.rdl.com