Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Your skill will accomplish
what the force of many cannot
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Perl in space?

by dHarry (Abbot)
on Aug 26, 2010 at 15:14 UTC ( #857479=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Perl in space?
in thread Perl in space?

Thanks for your response, very interesting. Let's compare a little bit. (Taken from a PA document, a possible SW criticality categorization is... (our standards can be tailored in most cases).

Category Definition --------------------------------------------------------------------- A Software that if not executed, or if not correctly executed, or whose anomalous behaviour can cause or contribute to a system failure resulting in: -> Catastrophic consequences --------------------------------------------------------------------- B Software that if not executed, or if not correctly executed, or whose anomalous behaviour can cause or contribute to a system failure resulting in: -> Critical consequences --------------------------------------------------------------------- C Software that if not executed, or if not correctly executed, or whose anomalous behaviour can cause or contribute to a system failure resulting in: -> Major consequences --------------------------------------------------------------------- D Software that if not executed, or if not correctly executed, or whose anomalous behaviour can cause or contribute to a system failure resulting in: -> Minor or Negligible consequences ---------------------------------------------------------------------

I have written Perl for category D. I'm sure there is Perl category C around as well.

Cheers

Harry

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Perl in space?
by jhourcle (Prior) on Aug 27, 2010 at 12:23 UTC

    I really hate classification systems like that -- who's to decide what's major, minor, critical, etc?

    The NASA one's much more clear -- (A) : failure is likely to cause the loss of human life; (B) : failure is likely to cause the loss of a spacecraft or failure of the mission; (C) : failure is likely to cause the loss of a secondary mission objective; ... and everything after that's just an annoyance of some sort.

    Years ago, I wrote a trouble ticket system, and we had those sorts of terms, but I qualified then all ... it went from 'cosmetic issue' to 'the building is on fire', with steps in between for 'annoyance', 'can't get work done', 'multiple people can't get work done', 'the boss can't get work done', etc.

      I don't like the classification systemas too much myself but they do serve a purpose. E.g. in a selection process to make a decision or to justify an expensive code inspection etc. In defense of it I can say I provided a summary, of course everything is specified in detail;) For example "catastrophic" is described as:

      • Loss of life, life‐threatening or permanently disabling injury or occupational illness
      • Loss of an interfacing manned flight system
      • Severe detrimental environmental effects
      • Loss of launch site facilities
      • Loss of system
      So I think both standards are equally (un)clear;)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://857479]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (3)
As of 2018-11-19 01:16 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    My code is most likely broken because:
















    Results (206 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?