Article View: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Article #9785Re: Negative Open Counts (was Re: IEEE libraries)
From: root
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1988 11:25
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1988 11:25
39 lines
2805 bytes
2805 bytes
In article <368@boing.UUCP>, dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) writes:
> In article <39822@linus.UUCP> eachus@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>
> It is not a good idea to put this stuff in any of the libraries and
> begin a precedent of tolerating software bugs. We must strive for
> perfection in this operating system and associated applications or
> we will eventually wind up limited by our own short sightedness.
>
No, relying on bug free programs for correct system operation
is just bad design. Bugs exist. Bugs come into existence when
the OS changes. Some bugs are created when two programs play
together in some unexpected way. Some bugs are created when two
pieces of hardware interact in strange ways. Some bugs even show
up when the base machine is changed, ie new motherboard rev. If we
have relatively inexpensive ways of riding through error/bad
programming conditions they should be taken. I would say that we
probably don't want to get into general argument checking, but simple,
fairly low rate of occurance calls can be checked: Open*/Close*
operations are always good candidates for checking. People still find
bugs in VMS/Unix utilities in spite of the maturity/simplicity of at
least Unix applications, so expecting more of the Amiga is unreasonable.
Especially given the evolving nature of the Amiga and of course lack
of memory protection, resource tracking, etc.
We *should* all strive for perfection. This being the real world
though, when a program falls short of our ideal the machine doesn't
need to put up big BLINKING RED LIGHTS that a software error occured.
Bad press for the machine and silly if a few extra bytes spent doing
some minimal checking could have prevented it. I sometimes get the
impression that people respect an IBM PC style crash more than
"Software Error - Task held" or "GURU meditation" if for no other
reason than if the Amiga is smart enough to detect the condition
they ask "why can't it fix it?". Anways, that opinion is based on a
very limited sample set of non computer types who've used my Amiga here.
> Dale Luck Boing, Inc. {cbmvax|oliveb|pyramid}|!amiga!boing!dale
Rick Spanbauer
SUNY/Stony Brook
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1587@sbcs.sunysb.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!gatech!ncar!ames!oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!sbcs!rootReferences:
<1356@percival.UUCP> <b03Kac9bnd10108qAIk@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <368@boing.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!gatech!ncar!ames!oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!sbcs!root From: root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (root) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Negative Open Counts (was Re: IEEE libraries) Summary: Bugs, bugs Keywords: open counts Message-ID: <1587@sbcs.sunysb.edu> Date: 13 Sep 88 11:25:29 GMT References: <1356@percival.UUCP> <b03Kac9bnd10108qAIk@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <368@boing.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook Lines: 39