Those definitions of "robust" seem to have a bimodal character with respect to "vigor". Who would use "vigorous" in reference to software, a control system, or a plastic?"Capable of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions " is a much weaker condition than vigorous growth or Taleb's notion of antifragility. Unfortunately, engineering methods such as robust control and robust design are similarly much weaker than Taleb's notion of antifragility. Perhaps the problem is that the original definition of "robust" was intended more for living, growing, adaptable things (i.e., antifragile things) but was co-opted as a marketing term for plastics and software which might be non-fragile at best. As such the old word "robust" may be much the same as Taleb's definition. Unfortunately, the current word "robust" is too weak, especially in it's use in technical fields such as engineering, software, and controls, so that it misses the adaptive growth.