News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Integer Overflow Bug in Boeing 787 Dreamliner by anderspitman on Saturday May 02, 2015 @03:06PM (#9478141)
I honestly can decide whether this is serious, satire, or conspiracy theory, but it's awesome nonetheless. My first project working on the 787 was converting an Ada codebase to C.
Re:Integer Overflow Bug in Boeing 787 Dreamliner by azth on Saturday May 02, 2015 @03:17PM (#9478191)
Isn't Ada precisely suited for this sort of application? What was the motivation for switching to C?
Re:Integer Overflow Bug in Boeing 787 Dreamliner by randomsearch on Saturday May 02, 2015 @07:53PM (#9479052)
> What was the motivation for switching to C?

Invariably, cost. SPARK Ada is demonstrably superior to C for safety-critical development (I can't cite the sources for this, but a major company developing safety-critical software has shown this to be the case).

But, SPARK Ada requires a lot of highly skilled manpower and it's slow to develop. C gets the job done, albeit with lots of bugs.

Re:Integer Overflow Bug in Boeing 787 Dreamliner by cpeterso on Sunday May 03, 2015 @12:29AM (#9479926)
If the industry is unwilling to invest in the training or tooling for a safe language like SPARK Ada, is there research into "easier" safe languages, something between C and Ada? Or do companies like Boeing still expect to be writing new avionics safety in C in 2030 or 2040?
Re:Integer Overflow Bug in Boeing 787 Dreamliner by randomsearch on Sunday May 03, 2015 @08:56AM (#9481100)
Yes, Real-Time Java being an example.

Realistically, it seems to me that avionics etc. will be written in C for a very long time to come. It all comes down to the cost and availability of programmers.

Re:Integer Overflow Bug in Boeing 787 Dreamliner by anderspitman on Saturday May 02, 2015 @03:29PM (#9478235)
C is incredibly portable and tons of programmers know it. Ada is great in a lot of ways but just never got the traction it needed to be #1.
Re:Integer Overflow Bug in Boeing 787 Dreamliner by azth on Saturday May 02, 2015 @11:08PM (#9479651)
Sure, but shouldn't safety be the number one concern here? Programmers can always be trained to learn it, as long as they demonstrate competence. It seems like an unfortunate case of trying to cut costs at the cost of safety.