🚀 go-pugleaf

Gregory L Hansen wrote:

> Well... if the Blue Box crashes and is restarted, chances are the program
> will receive a restart Blue Box event.

Then the blue box would have to restart all the applications that were running at the 
time the blue box crashed. While I certainly consider this a feasible sort of thing, 
re-loading every application sure does kill the prospect of 'shorter startup times'.


> [sensible explanation of how BB restart protocol could work deleted]
 
> It's really not that hard.  You need to add some extra code for
> restarting the interface (not much extra code since you already have to
> draw it once), and otherwise, your program should act like that anyway.

Hmmm. The program must check upon startup whether it has crashed and re-collect at 
least some system state from various assorted places. I do not consider this a 
trivial matter. Which makes me think about where the spawned threads are going to 
store their results (in their own part of protected memory?) and how 'the UI engine' 
is going to retrieve it. This would require some PPC toolbox mechanism I suppose? The 
whole concept of 1 single program having to set up all sorts of communication 
channels with other parts of ITSELF just does not appeal to me at all. It sounds like 
consulting yourself on whether you want ice-cream or not.


> >I thought all the PMT bullshit was to make the programmer's life easier.
>
> I thought you'd heard?  The whole idea of the Mac and other GUIs is to
> make the *user's* life easier, not the programmers.

Since when is a programmer not considered a user??

(though I grasp your point here, I feel that once programmers stop using computers, 
users will not get new software; and programmers stop using a computer when it 
becomes cumbersome if not impossible to program, just like 'regular' users)


> >People are just not going to do it. The BB will crash and lots of PMT
> >spawned processes will not anticipate it. As things stand, anything
> >beyond that is pure speculation.
> 
> That programmers are not going to do it, and that PMT spawned process
> will not anticipate a BB crash, is also pure speculation.  

Very true, very true.


> You're possibly assuming that the programmers are sloppier and lazier 
> than they really are.  You're also assuming that those programmers won't 
> be fired or moved to other projects, and replaced by programmers who will
> do the job right.


What I'm assuming is that humans tend to tire of perfecting a job once it works. 
Another thing I'm assuming is that humans (even programmers) have a certain limit to 
the number of things they can & want to keep implementing on top of the result that 
the program was meant to produce.

What I'm also assuming is that the bosses who hire the programmers do not even fully 
KNOW what should be implemented before the job is 'done right' - and even if they do 
they will probably not care about PowerTalk support once the thing is considered 
'done' on three other platforms.




-* no thing *-