[SystemSafety] Stupid Software Errors [was: Overflow......]

[Andy Ashworth]

So safety critical software today is being developed by inexperienced personnel with little or no relevant training... I guess on the positive side, development costs are cheap :(

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 4, 2015, at 16:59, Steve Tockey <Steve.Tockey at construx.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> With the average age of developers being about 29 years old, maybe most aren't old enough. And many have no formal software education so even a discussion of such failures in a degree program would have little effect on the target population.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Mike Ellims <michael.ellims at tesco.net>
> Date: Monday, May 4, 2015 1:01 PM
> To: 'Andy Ashworth' <andy at the-ashworths.org>, "M.Pont at SafeTTy.net" <M.Pont at SafeTTy.net>
> Cc: 'The System Safety List' <systemsafety at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
> Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Stupid Software Errors [was: Overflow......]
> 
> > With the established history of date/time roll-over issues, shouldn't any date be viewed with suspicion during design safety analysis appropriate defensive design measures put in place?
>  
> The question is why?
> I know this issue is documented in at least one book.
> Did any of the programmers/coder on this even know about previous examples?
>  
>  
> From: systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Andy Ashworth
> Sent: 04 May 2015 13:55
> To: M.Pont at SafeTTy.net
> Cc: The System Safety List
> Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Stupid Software Errors [was: Overflow......]
>  
> Why wait until testing? With the established history of date/time roll-over issues, shouldn't any date be viewed with suspicion during design safety analysis appropriate defensive design measures put in place?
>  
> Andy
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On May 4, 2015, at 08:49, Michael J. Pont <M.Pont at SafeTTy.net> wrote:
> 
> Matthew:
>  
> “On the other hand I don't think we should loose sight of the fact that the Boeing 'bug' was found by running a long duration simulation, not by an airliner falling out of the sky. So perhaps thanks is due to the Boeing safety or software engineer(s) who insisted on a long run endurance test and who might have actually learned something from history?”
>  
> OK – but maybe next time we can ask them to do this testing before the aircraft goes into service …
>  
> Michael.
>  
> Michael J. Pont
> SafeTTy Systems Ltd.
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> 
> 
> 	
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20150504/6b29fd24/attachment.html>