On Saturday, 1 November 2014 at 16:42:31 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
My ideas are what are implemented on airplanes.
For components, not for a system. Nobody said a word against component design, it's systems that people want to be able to design, yet you prohibit it.
I didn't originate these ideas, they come from the aviation industry.
You're original in claiming it is the only working solution, but aviation industry proves error resilient systems are possible and successful, even though you claim their design is unsound and unusable. Yet you praise them, acknowledging their success, which makes your claims ever so ironical.
Recall that I was employed as an engineer working on flight critical systems design for the 757.
This is how problem decomposition works: you don't need to understand the whole system to work on a component.
On Sunday, 2 November 2014 at 17:53:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Kernel mode code is the responsibility of the OS system, not the app.
Suddenly safety becomes not the top priority. If it can't always be the priority, there should be a choice of priorities, but you deny that choice. It's a matter of compliance with reality. Whatever way you design the language, can you change reality that way? I don't see why possibility of choice prevents anything.
