On Jul 23, 7:43 am, Michael Oswald <········@gmx.net> wrote:
> I mean, I work in the space
> business (although not directly on on-board software but rather mission
> control software and testing equipment) but I haven't heard of Lisp
> usage. Would definitely be a 'nice to know' for me.
Probably because they weren't too successful. I personally think Lisp
is super-cool, but inappropriate for space (or any reliability-
sensitive work).
If I remember correctly, when they used Lisp in the probe, there was a
bug and they used Lisp's live patching and interactive debugging to
fix it, so they only missed their target by a quadrillion miles
instead of missing it by a gazillion miles.
On the other hand, the bug wouldn't have happened in the first place,
if they used a good static language. I'll let someone who knows better
fill in the details (that's why I added comp.lang.lisp to the groups)
Happy space exploration and exploitation!
In comp.lang.lisp ·······@gmail.com <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, the bug wouldn't have happened in the first place,
> if they used a good static language.
Ariane 5? ;-)
P� Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:59:11 +0200, skrev ·······@gmail.com
<·······@gmail.com>:
> On Jul 23, 7:43 am, Michael Oswald <········@gmx.net> wrote:
>> I mean, I work in the space
>> business (although not directly on on-board software but rather mission
>> control software and testing equipment) but I haven't heard of Lisp
>> usage. Would definitely be a 'nice to know' for me.
>
> Probably because they weren't too successful. I personally think Lisp
> is super-cool, but inappropriate for space (or any reliability-
> sensitive work).
>
> If I remember correctly, when they used Lisp in the probe, there was a
> bug and they used Lisp's live patching and interactive debugging to
> fix it, so they only missed their target by a quadrillion miles
> instead of missing it by a gazillion miles.
>
> On the other hand, the bug wouldn't have happened in the first place,
> if they used a good static language. I'll let someone who knows better
> fill in the details (that's why I added comp.lang.lisp to the groups)
>
> Happy space exploration and exploitation!
Mathematically verify it with ACL2! Way better than silly type checking.
Check that theprogram does what the spec sais.
(Which still only proves that it does what you say, not what you men.))
--------------
John Thingstad
On Jul 24, 12:39 am, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> Mathematically verify it with ACL2! Way better than silly type checking.
> Check that theprogram does what the spec sais.
> (Which still only proves that it does what you say, not what you men.))
>
Typo-prone people probably shouldn't use dynamically-typed languages!
BTW us, static folk, got Coq, which is probably better than ACL2: the
name "ACL2" sounds like they couldn't even get it right in the first
try.
P� Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:51:55 +0200, skrev ·······@gmail.com
<·······@gmail.com>:
> On Jul 24, 12:39 am, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
>
>> Mathematically verify it with ACL2! Way better than silly type checking.
>> Check that theprogram does what the spec sais.
>> (Which still only proves that it does what you say, not what you men.))
>>
>
> Typo-prone people probably shouldn't use dynamically-typed languages!
> BTW us, static folk, got Coq, which is probably better than ACL2: the
> name "ACL2" sounds like they couldn't even get it right in the first
> try.
Well the first post got tossed away by accident and the second was written
in a hurry in aggravation.
Anyhow you are wrong. Since variables must be declared before they are
used and also assigned a object typo's are get caught at compile time just
like in a statically compiled language.
--------------
John Thingstad
<·······@gmail.com> wrote in message
·········································@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 24, 12:39 am, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
>
>> Mathematically verify it with ACL2! Way better than silly type checking.
>> Check that theprogram does what the spec sais.
>> (Which still only proves that it does what you say, not what you men.))
>>
>
> Typo-prone people probably shouldn't use dynamically-typed languages!
> BTW us, static folk, got Coq, which is probably better than ACL2: the
> name "ACL2" sounds like they couldn't even get it right in the first
> try.
You've "got Coq"??? And you're willing to talk about bad names?
*grin*
On Jul 24, 1:39 pm, "Brian" <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <·······@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> ·········································@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 24, 12:39 am, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
>
> >> Mathematically verify it with ACL2! Way better than silly type checking.
> >> Check that theprogram does what the spec sais.
> >> (Which still only proves that it does what you say, not what you men.))
>
> > Typo-prone people probably shouldn't use dynamically-typed languages!
> > BTW us, static folk, got Coq, which is probably better than ACL2: the
> > name "ACL2" sounds like they couldn't even get it right in the first
> > try.
>
> You've "got Coq"??? And you're willing to talk about bad names?
> *grin*
I think "Coq" conveys a feeling of confidence that a theorem prover
should. (Btw thanks for ruining the discussion with your low-brow
shtik)
<·······@gmail.com> wrote in message
·········································@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 24, 1:39 pm, "Brian" <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <·······@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> ·········································@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 24, 12:39 am, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
>>
>> >> Mathematically verify it with ACL2! Way better than silly type
>> >> checking.
>> >> Check that theprogram does what the spec sais.
>> >> (Which still only proves that it does what you say, not what you
>> >> men.))
>>
>> > Typo-prone people probably shouldn't use dynamically-typed languages!
>> > BTW us, static folk, got Coq, which is probably better than ACL2: the
>> > name "ACL2" sounds like they couldn't even get it right in the first
>> > try.
>>
>> You've "got Coq"??? And you're willing to talk about bad names?
>> *grin*
>
> I think "Coq" conveys a feeling of confidence that a theorem prover
> should. (Btw thanks for ruining the discussion with your low-brow
> shtik)
After the ACL2 comment, it seemed appropriate. I doubt if one comment
"ruined" the discussion for anyone. Well, anyone other than those whose
craniums are firmly emplaced in their anal orifice... (High-brow shtik is
sooo much better!)
Really, I find it's usually those who make tone, content or format comments
that tend to bring down the discussion. A little levity rarely hurts much,
and I'm sure you'll get over it.
And btw, you're welcome.
On Jul 25, 1:29 pm, "Brian" <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <·······@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > I think "Coq" conveys a feeling of confidence that a theorem prover
> > should. (Btw thanks for ruining the discussion with your low-brow
> > shtik)
>
> ....
I wasn't trying to be serious. I mean, read the first sentence! Comedy
is hard.
<·······@gmail.com> wrote in message
·········································@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 1:29 pm, "Brian" <···········@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <·······@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > I think "Coq" conveys a feeling of confidence that a theorem prover
>> > should. (Btw thanks for ruining the discussion with your low-brow
>> > shtik)
>>
>> ....
>
> I wasn't trying to be serious. I mean, read the first sentence! Comedy
> is hard.
Sorry, not only did I mis-read, I also missed the rimshot.
Goodnight Sheky!
You've all been a great audience. Be sure to tip your waitresses!
We'll be here all week.
········@gmail.com" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jul 23, 7:43 am, Michael Oswald <········@gmx.net> wrote:
>> I mean, I work in the space
>> business (although not directly on on-board software but rather mission
>> control software and testing equipment) but I haven't heard of Lisp
>> usage. Would definitely be a 'nice to know' for me.
>
> Probably because they weren't too successful. I personally think Lisp
> is super-cool, but inappropriate for space (or any reliability-
> sensitive work).
>
> If I remember correctly, when they used Lisp in the probe, there was a
> bug and they used Lisp's live patching and interactive debugging to
> fix it, so they only missed their target by a quadrillion miles
> instead of missing it by a gazillion miles.
It wasn't the purpose of the mission to hit the target, but to fly by.
> On the other hand, the bug wouldn't have happened in the first place,
> if they used a good static language. I'll let someone who knows better
> fill in the details (that's why I added comp.lang.lisp to the groups)
>
> Happy space exploration and exploitation!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/ames/news/releases/1999/99_37AR.html
REMOTE AGENT EXPERIMENT MEETS ALL OBJECTIVES
http://web.archive.org/web/20010923215958/http://rax.arc.nasa.gov/
http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html
Be sure to read the description of the bug:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061106012026/http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/publications/pdf/2000-0176.pdf
It has nothing to do with Lisp per se. It could have occured with any
other programming language. Now, the question is how do you correct a
dead-lock on a running system compiled from Ada code, 3 second-light
away, without rebooting it? This is what lisp allowed for this space
probe, and what lisp allows also for running web servers.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Michael Oswald
Subject: Re: computer language used to program Mars Lander
Date:
Message-ID: <g69pej$r6t$1@mail1.sbs.de>
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/ames/news/releases/1999/99_37AR.html
> REMOTE AGENT EXPERIMENT MEETS ALL OBJECTIVES
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010923215958/http://rax.arc.nasa.gov/
>
> http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html
>
> Be sure to read the description of the bug:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20061106012026/http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/publications/pdf/2000-0176.pdf
>
> It has nothing to do with Lisp per se. It could have occured with any
> other programming language. Now, the question is how do you correct a
> dead-lock on a running system compiled from Ada code, 3 second-light
> away, without rebooting it? This is what lisp allowed for this space
> probe, and what lisp allows also for running web servers.
>
Thanks for the links!
Very interesting. It also makes sense to me to put Lisp into this Remote
Agent unit (which doesn't seem to be very time critical and also doesn't
deal with low level stuff but is rather on a high level).
So each language can play out it's strengths.
In comp.lang.lisp Michael Oswald <········@gmx.net> wrote:
> Very interesting. It also makes sense to me to put Lisp into this Remote
> Agent unit (which doesn't seem to be very time critical and also doesn't
> deal with low level stuff but is rather on a high level).
> So each language can play out it's strengths.
Subtle trolling. Gratuliere.
--
Web (en): http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- Web (de): http://www.frell.de/
From: Michael Oswald
Subject: Re: computer language used to program Mars Lander
Date:
Message-ID: <g69t08$juj$1@mail1.sbs.de>
Stefan Scholl wrote:
> Subtle trolling. Gratuliere.
What's your problem?
On Jul 24, 5:04 am, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> > Probably because they weren't too successful. I personally think Lisp
> > is super-cool, but inappropriate for space (or any reliability-
> > sensitive work).
>
>
> > On the other hand, the bug wouldn't have happened in the first place,
> > if they used a good static language.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/ames/news/releases/1999/99_37AR.html
> REMOTE AGENT EXPERIMENT MEETS ALL OBJECTIVES
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010923215958/http://rax.arc.nasa.gov/
>
> http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html
>
> Be sure to read the description of the bug:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20061106012026/http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/publ...
>
> It has nothing to do with Lisp per se. It could have occured with any
> other programming language. Now, the question is how do you correct a
> dead-lock on a running system compiled from Ada code, 3 second-light
> away, without rebooting it? This is what lisp allowed for this space
> probe, and what lisp allows also for running web servers.
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__
Rule #1: If any project fails, and Lisp was used, then it must have
been the fault of choosing to use Lisp, or some deficiency of Lisp.
Rule #1a: Specifically, the failure must have been because Lisp does
not have typed variables.
It is quite impressive how often I have heard these trotted out, often
to make Lisp the scapegoat for some more fundamental problem. That's
what happens when your language is unusual, or out of style.
On 24 Lug, 08:59, ········@gmail.com" <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> is super-cool
On 24 Lug, 08:59, ········@gmail.com" <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... super-cool ...
What's the better language: hebrew or english?
Well, the first one is simple and perfect, and the second one goes all
for convenience (mixed to european history, which took origin from
latin, which took origin from greek, which took origin from egyptian,
which took origin from hebrew (and so the circle is finally closed
again)). <-- please note: we have to close 2 (two) parens here, which
seems to be a real problem to all the non-Lispers out there...
So what?
(The translation to coding slangs is left as an exercise to the reader
(no, the human one)). <-- yet another one!!
-JO
On Jul 25, 2:19 pm, "j.oke" <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 Lug, 08:59, ········@gmail.com" <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > is super-cool
>
> On 24 Lug, 08:59, ········@gmail.com" <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... super-cool ...
>
> What's the better language: hebrew or english?
>
> Well, the first one is simple and perfect, and the second one goes all
> for convenience (mixed to european history, which took origin from
> latin, which took origin from greek, which took origin from egyptian,
> which took origin from hebrew (and so the circle is finally closed
> again)).
Ummm, no. I think you're talking about the *alphabet*, not the
language. The English language is part of a large group of languages
called Indo-European, and Hebrew isn't part of this group (nor is
Egyptian). Where this language originated is controversial; one
theory is somewhere northeast of the Black Sea. I don't think you're
quite right about the alphabets, either; the Greek and Hebrew
alphabets are both more or less directly derived from the Phoenician
alphabet, and Egyptian hieroglyphics don't figure into it at all.
> ... super-pedantic ...
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan wrote:
> the Greek and Hebrew
> alphabets are both more or less directly derived from the Phoenician
> alphabet, and Egyptian hieroglyphics don't figure into it at all.
actually, i believe the consensus is that the proto-semitic alphabet from
which the phoenician alphabet developed, was directly derived from egyptian
hieroglyphics.
--
Joost Kremers ············@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)
On 26 Lug, 00:34, Adam Beneschan <····@irvine.com> wrote:
> no.
There's much more thought in it (between the lines) than it might seem
(at a first/fast/superficial glance), but I don't expect anybody to
waste too much hours on meditating on it.
;)
-JO
On 26 Lug, 00:34, Adam Beneschan <····@irvine.com> wrote:
> I think you're talking about the *alphabet*, not the
> language.
I wrote (and meant): history.
-JO