[J3] 18-156

[Damian Rouson]

On February 27, 2018 at 7:12:16 AM, Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101) (thomas.l.clune at nasa.gov) wrote:


Perhaps I?m overly naive, but the combination of generic programming and ?new types?, should allow a significant portion of the units functionality to developed in libraries. ? Adoption of said libraries could lead to demand for a more robust solution in the standard going forward. ??

I love that idea both because it shows the power of generic programming and because it might move us toward a more community-driven model wherein such libraries might also be future candidates for standardization. ?I don?t think we currently have a great mechanism for grassroots contributions to the standard outside the small group of committee members beyond what the committee has time to develop with limited human resources.


My understanding is that while mistakes in physical units were involved in the failure, the mistakes were in _data_ files not in _source_ code. ? The proposed feature would then _not_ have prevented the $200 million loss. ? ?Well-funded organizations are free to negotiate with vendors to pay them to implement such features. ? ?And my guess is that the cost for such is significantly less than the price of such missions. ? ?And even without new features, a great deal of protections can be created through libraries at a fraction of the $200 million price of another mission. ? ??
Sounds points. ?Thanks for the additional insights.



Damian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3_mailman.j3-fortran.org/attachments/20180227/97cd1400/attachment.html>