Timeline for Why is Python used on aircraft although it may not be certifiable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2017 at 9:48 | comment | added | leftaroundabout | C++ OTOH allows lots of code reuse through templates, which doesn't rely on any dangerous subtyping and is completely verifiable at compile-time. And the Hindley-Milner languages generally resolve all polymorphism at compile-time, and never do any implicit coercions at all. About Java or C#... I'm not sure – they certainly aren't the safest option, but at least they're designed upfront with awareness of OO subtyping and its possible security ramifications. | |
| Oct 21, 2017 at 9:48 | comment | added | leftaroundabout |
@CodyP well, loose typing is what I mainly meant by “C is horrible for verifying anything”. Again – true is, as long as you basically just write Fortran77 in C, it is reasonably rigid. But as soon as you want to do any sort of polymorphism, C doesn't help you at all and you have to go through void* which is about the loosest typing you can get. And without any polymorphism, it is very difficult to adhere to DRY, which in principle is very desirable for safety.
|
|
| Oct 21, 2017 at 0:21 | comment | added | RealAnswersNotAI | @leftaroundabout Yes, C has plenty of room for errors like NaN handling, initialization, and memory structures, but typically code generation for those is set up consistently enough to avoid issues (like avoiding dyanmic allocation and protections against divide by zero). OOP and loose typing, on the other hand, requires lots of complex structural coverage testing because its possible what you think is a Foo is actually an insidious Bar. See CAST-17 for example. | |
| Oct 14, 2017 at 12:37 | comment | added | user | I like how you put "How can I email my boss every day asking for a promotion?" as a problem that needs a script to solve. Make sure that in those e-mails you point out the virtues of automation. :-) | |
| Oct 14, 2017 at 11:45 | comment | added | leftaroundabout | (I suppose you're right though that C code which essentially uses the Fortran77 subset of the language can be verified quite well, but it's extremely painful to write.) | |
| Oct 14, 2017 at 11:38 | comment | added | leftaroundabout | “C's lack of object-oriented programming and complaints when you abuse variable types may be annoying, but they also lead to easy verification that the software isn't doing something wrong behind your back.” Um... C is horrible for verifying anything, you really want a stronger type system for that. Java, C++, obviously Ada all have a better standing here, not to speak of the really strong type systems that languages like O'Caml, Haskell or Idris offer. And even Python is arguably safer than C because its type system is stronger. | |
| S Oct 13, 2017 at 15:40 | history | suggested | selectstriker2 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
put list of hypothetical questions as bullets for readability
|
| Oct 13, 2017 at 15:40 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 13, 2017 at 15:40 | |||||
| Oct 13, 2017 at 12:43 | comment | added | pipe | ...hacks away at that promotion script | |
| Oct 13, 2017 at 6:52 | comment | added | T. Archer | For sure we spend a good chunk of time writing fancy Excel spreadsheets full of VBA to process data! | |
| Oct 12, 2017 at 21:07 | comment | added | FreeMan | I've seen more than a few airport terminals running Win NT - you can tell by the BSOD! (Yup, I've seen a few.) Of course, that's aviation related, but not aircraft specific. | |
| Oct 12, 2017 at 20:53 | history | edited | RealAnswersNotAI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar fix to title
|
| Oct 12, 2017 at 16:30 | history | answered | RealAnswersNotAI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |