From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:56cf:: with SMTP id o198mr3143507itb.12.1554513405653;
        Fri, 05 Apr 2019 18:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6941:: with SMTP id p1mr10711102oto.64.1554513405482;
 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 18:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!78no160586itl.0!news-out.google.com!l81ni235itl.0!nntp.google.com!78no160585itl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8736mwi257.fsf@nightsong.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=70.109.61.2;
 posting-account=QF6XPQoAAABce2NyPxxDAaKdAkN6RgAf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.109.61.2
References: <8736mwi257.fsf@nightsong.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a439dc78-52d9-4a52-aed3-eb3ffdb9af0e@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Boeing 737 and 737 MAX software
From: Jere <jhb.chat@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2019 01:16:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56082
Date: 2019-04-05T18:16:45-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5:16:22 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Does anyone know anything about this?  It has been under some criticism
> lately.
> 
> I have heard that the 777 software was almost entirely in Ada.  It also
> sounds as if Boeing's software operation may have slipped in recent
> years, not good news for the 737 MAX.

I've honestly not read anything that actually indicates a software error,
though I haven't looked in the last few days at it.  Everything I have 
read up to now indicates Engineering and Management no-nos.  They
appeared to improperly designed how some of the hardware was to be installed
then made a software patch to compensate for it.  They then convinced
some governing body that there was no pilot retraining needed for the new
software.  I don't think the software was actually at fault.  Again, 
maybe something different has surfaced in the last few days that I haven't
seen yet.