🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <731@super.ORG> rminnich@metropolis.UUCP (Ronald G Minnich) writes:
>In article <7096@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes:
>>I don't see a reason to react so strongly against GURU conditions.  It
>There is just one reason. when people see them they get upset, esp.
>people like J Pournelle who, like it or not, really can affect 
>how many amiga's get purchased.

I had this multiple code bug in my code for a year and didn't even
know it.  Once I found it, it took me a few days to shoot.  Looking back,
I would prefer to have had a recoverable GURU rather than no report at
all.  I would have known instantly that there was a bug, not a year
later.  I think fixing the problem is better than patching around it.

>   Dale makes a good point that the code SHOULD be perfect. But we
>all know (or at least i think i know) how likely this is. If the 
>tradeoff is slow suffocation (libraries hanging around that are 
>no longer open) vs. even a recoverable GURU, i vote for suffocation. 

You are refereing to run time suffocation.  Dale and Stuart are talking
about long term operating system suffocation.

>   Now a library could attempt to keep track of when bogosity occurs.
>That's a whole nother issue. and of course the right answer is 
>resource tracking. But we have to use what we have, not what we should
>have.

This is the right answer, but is a system issue, not just an IEEE library
issue.

>ron

                                                  kevin
-- 
UUCP:  kevin@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com
  or:  {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,seismo,oliveb}!amdahl!kevin
DDD:   408-737-5481
USPS:  Amdahl Corp.  M/S 249,  1250 E. Arques Av,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086

[  Any thoughts or opinions which may or may not have been expressed  ]
[  herein are my own.  They are not necessarily those of my employer. ]