🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <17287@cbmvax.commodore.com> kevin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Kevin Klop) writes:
>Ummm, it is ALWAYS my GOAL to have a bug free program.  As such, as soon as
>someone reports a GURU or bug to me, I fix it and give the fix to everyone
>with a copy of the program.  I do NOT blame the OS for my bug, nor believe that
>the OS should be modified in order to "put up" with errors in _my_ code.
>
>						-- Kevin --

My point is an issue of robustness.  Give someone a computer, and the next
thing you know, they want to write a program on it ;).  Every time you go
through the program development process, you have to deal with bugs in your
code.  Often, these bugs are of a catastrophic nature.  I think that expecting
the OS to deal with programs that experience such bugs in a graceful manner
is not unreasonable.  I have been taught that program robustness (in dealing
with user input and environment conditions) is nearly as important as program
correctness.  Should an OS be held up to any less of a standard?

I don't blame any OS for bugs introduced by *my* code.  But I do believe that
an OS should be as robust as possible in dealing with what a user program
might do.


>Kevin Klop		{uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!kevin
>Commodore-Amiga, Inc.
>
>	``Be excellent to each other.''
>		- Bill and Ted's most excellent adventure
>
>Disclaimer: _I_ don't know what I said, much less my employer.


Dave Schaumann		| You are in a twisty maze of little
dave@cs.arizona.edu	| C statements, all different.