Program logic bugs vs input/environmental errors

[Kagamin via Digitalmars-d]

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.