Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Pascal Bourguignon]

Steve Schafer <see at reply.to.header> writes:

> On 20 Oct 2003 19:03:10 +0200, Pascal Bourguignon
> <spam at thalassa.informatimago.com> wrote:
> 
> >Even in case of hardware failure, there's no reason to shut down the
> >mind; just go on with what you have.
> 
> When the thing that failed is a very large rocket having a very large
> momentum, and containing a very large amount of very volatile fuel, it
> makes sense to give up and shut down in the safest possible way.

You  have  to define  a  "dangerous"  situation.   Remember that  this
"safest possible way" is usually  to blow the rocket up.  AFAIK, while
this  parameter was out  of range,  there was  no instability  and the
rocket was not uncontrolable.  
 

> Also keep in mind that this was a "can't possibly happen" failure
> scenario. If you've deemed that it is something that can't possibly
> happen, you are necessarily admitting that you have no idea how to
> respond in a meaningful way if it somehow does happen.

My point.  This "can't possibly happen" failure did happen, so clearly
it was not a "can't  possibly happen" physically, which means that the
problem was with the software. We know it, but what I'm saying is that
a smarter software could have deduced it on fly.

We  all agree that  it would  be better  to have  a perfect  world and
perfect,  bug-free, software.   But  since that's  not  the case,  I'm
saying that instead of having software that behaves like simple unix C
tools, where  as soon  as there is  an unexpected situation,  it calls
perror() and exit(), it would  be better to have smarter software that
can  try and  handle UNEXPECTED  error situations,  including  its own
bugs.  I would feel safer in an AI rocket.


-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com/
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
Lying for having sex or lying for making war?  Trust US presidents :-(