Re: Software fault forces Ford recall

["Stephen Maudsley" <stephen.maudsley@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Campbell, John" <John.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'P.H.Welch'" <P.H.Welch@xxxxxxxxx>; <occam-com@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 December, 2000 12:02 AM
Subject: RE: Software fault forces Ford recall


> Hi
>
> >
> > > So my assertion is that the hard part is agreeing on the
> > new grammar.
> > > The easy part is implementing it.
> >
>
>
> My personal vote would be Java.  IMHO, the main thing wrong
> with CTJ/JCSP is that CSP is tacked on as a library which
> *may* be used correctly.  Checking should be added to the
> compiler.  It won't be Java anymore, but if the code runs
> on the JVM, it won't matter.

Depends on your viewpoint.

I think you're correct that the "ideal language" is what you need for your
favourite project.

However there are narrow windows of opportunity to adopt a new programming
language for large projects. For a two year project with 10 engineers you
might have only a 3 month window (if you're lucky) in which to decide to use
a new language. A library can be adopted into only part of a major project
and lay a framework for the adoption of CSP technology into the next
project.

So from my viewpoint: IMHO, the main thing right with CTJ/JCSP is that CSP
is tacked on as a library which may be used correctly.

--
-- Stephen Maudsley, Esgem Limited mailto:Stephen.Maudsley@xxxxxxxxx
-- http://www.esgem.com
-- Tel: +44-1453-521626 Mobile: +44-7770-810991
-- company registered in England 3372135, http://www.esgem.com/contact.htm