🚀 go-pugleaf

> *Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.sys.amiga.tech: 13-Sep-88 Re: Negative Open*
> *Counts (w.. root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (2237)*

> 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.

> Bad press for the machine and silly if a few extra bytes spent doing
>       some minimal checking could have prevented it.

I think what Dale was trying to say is that if developers encounter protection
in some sections of the operating system, they will come to expect the same
protection throughout and write programs based upon this (bogus) expectation.
It's like walking across a bridge someone put between two cliffs for you,
expecting the bridge to be solid along the way, but finding out it changes to a
tightrope halfway through.  More bad software could be written by programmers
on the belief that all the software is robust than if they knew from the start
they had to watch out for themselves.

The logical extension of this argument is that the system software should
either be as robust or as programmer-trusting as possible.  I don't want to
debate the merits of this proposition.

                        --M

Michael Portuesi / Information Technology Center / Carnegie Mellon University
ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu                     BITNET: rainwalker@drycas

"if you ain't ill it'll fix your car"