[SystemSafety] Fwd: Re: OpenSSL Bug

[C. Michael Holloway]

On 4/10/14 4:25 PM, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:
> Oh, there are obvious ways. Suppose we made it a crime, punishable by 
> hanging, drawing and quartering, to release in any form for use by the 
> public code that is not "type-conform".
My best guess is that before all of the readers of this list pass from 
the earth, the use of certain programming languages will be outlawed in 
at least some civilized countries.  Just as the use of asbestos is 
banned in many jurisdictions because its harmful effects are deemed to 
outweigh its benefits, so too will the use of (for example) C be banned.

> Isn't it far better for us computer scientists to agree what "type conform" means, to admit that
> non-type-conform SW has caused endless problems, and to demonstrate progress in addressing the
> scourge of non-type-conformity before the politicians decide to intervene?
>
My inclination is to think that the history of other disciplines 
suggests that intervention of politicians (or at least lawyers and 
juries) is more likely to be necessary than not.  Also, I am much less 
sanguine than PBL of the likelihood that a gathering of computer 
scientists could agree on anything, much less on a definition of "type 
conform".  The history of conversations on this list (and its 
predecessors / siblings) suggests that agreement is exceedingly rare.

-- 
/*cMh*/

*C. Michael Holloway*, Senior Research Engineer
Safety Critical Avionics Systems Branch, Research Directorate
NASA Langley Research Center / MS 130 Hampton VA 23681-2199 USA
office phone: +1.757.864.1701 /often forwarded to/ +1.757.598.1707

The words in this message are mine alone; neither blame nor credit NASA 
for them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20140410/dee39b5b/attachment.html>