Path: local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 22:56:11 +0000 From: Joe Gwinn Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: smart people doing stupid things Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 18:56:10 -0400 Message-ID: References: User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 50 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-TGoG6U4dZY4jhaxBZZfyz/2iIJlEOJZAOkkno9Z6NNKzXWX45+0WM60DF5Mh+gKJVDyymXZtMQzZ5Td!GX61Er9WOo+BNiq5pqSPZShPnBOL0WSkAwikqLdQnLTbJUr2rdI1/JCE2+Z9YSjx0AgEpzw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 3592 On Fri, 17 May 2024 17:11:53 -0400 (EDT), Martin Rid wrote: >John Larkin Wrote in > message:r >> On Fri, 17 May 2024 15:36:55 -0400 (EDT), Martin Rid wrote:>John Larkin Wrote in> message:r>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Peima-Uw7wSee graph at 9:50 in.I see this a lot, engineers wanting to do complex stuff because it'samusing to them, when simple common-sense things would work and bedone.>>My current project requires iec62304 and it is amusing .>>CheersYikes. What does it cost to buy the standard? Does it reference otherstandards? > >Only $348, surprisingly it does not reference other standards. > At least I dont see any. I got a big 4" binder of paper work > that should be sufficient to prove we followed the > standard. Big process effort. The only thing I know of that is worse is DO-178, the process for development of avionics software that is safety-critical in the sense that failure leads to loss of airplane and all aboard. I hope you are able remain sane. >The problem is getting the old guys to get on board , none of them > are interested. Yeah. I'm with the old guys on this. We paid our debt to process and was paroled for good behavior decades ago, and don't want to repeat the experience. Reminds me of Structured Programming (which forbids Go-To statements): .. Problem was that the Process Police tried to force me to follow this in operating-system kernels. Well, I'd like to see somebody build a kernel without go-to statements. The deeper problem is that structured programming basically requires that the flow chart can be drawn on a 2D surface without any cross-overs - the nesting must be perfect. Well, good luck following that with real computer hardware, never mind the special hardware that the computer controlled. Think parallel Finite State Machines interacting and interweaving at random, driven by random external events. Not even a 3D flow diagram suffices. So in this case, I didn't even attempt to document according to Structured Programming, instead telling the Process Police to buzz off. I only had to show them a real kernel listing once - a wall of assembly code. They had seen only toy examples in textbooks. Joe Gwinn