🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <i1p17m$ea1$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Kaye <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote:
" malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar) wrote:
" 
" >Yikes, try developing a Windows application. It's a constant
" >battle dealing with inadequate and inaccurate documentation
" >and MS bugs.
" 
" I spent 5 years developing critical medical software to assist in
" organ transplants.  The software has been in use worldwide, with the
" beta test site at UCSF.  The software was built for Windows.

I was matter-of-factly very appreciative and approving in your
paragraph, and thought everything was great, until I got to the last
sentence: "The software was built for Windows."  Anybody who writes
criticial software for Microsoft ought to be shot.  I mean officially
shot.



" It consisted of numerous workstations serving as data entry points,
" a separate computer that polled test results from multiple labs,

Odd that you didn't get it sent to you, in addition to a polling just
for redundancy.

[...]

" The software performed and it performed well for the 5 years I was at the 
" company.


Wow.

Herein is the meat of your point, of course.

[...]

" I think it gets down to proper programming.  Don't use undocumented calls and 
" be sure to test for hardware failures to be able to work around them.  

I generically agree regarding "proper programming", and am amazed that
today such an approach actually works with Microsoft.  Actually
amazed.  No wonder Microsoft's busy sabotaging Linux: they actually
have a real competitive reason to do that.