On Apr 16, 2:39    
wrote:
> What I don't see is any particular emphasis on specific languages.
> Considering that there seems to be no shortage of avionics software written
> in C/C++, I don't immediately see why Ruby or Python wouldn't work either,specially considering the intense process the software goes through.
>
> I tend not to discount any particular language prima facie. I recall over
> ....
> I'm inclined to think that 90%+ of software reliability comes from training,
> experience and above all, process. Not the programming language.

But that still leaves 10%-.  For example, as noted here (http://
www.praxis-his.com/sparkada/pdfs/spark_c130j.pdf), an analysis of
safety-critical code written in three languages (C, Ada and SPARK),
all of which was already certified to DO-178B Level A (the most
stringent level), it was found that the SPARK code had one tenth the
residual error rate of the Ada code, and the Ada code had only one
tenth the residual rate of the C code.  That's a 100:1 difference in
residual error rates in code all of which was certified to the highest
aviation standards.  Would anybody argue that putting out safety-
critical software with an error rate 100 times greater than the
current art allows is a good thing?  In fact, would anybody argue that
it is not grossly negligent?

Oh, and the anecdote about the compiler finding in minutes a bug that
had defied testing for a week should not be lightly dismissed either.