On Jan 25, 2010, at 6:11 PM, J.C. Roberts wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32:10 -0800 Ben Calvert <b...@flyingwalrus.net> > wrote: > >> >> On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:20 AM, J.C. Roberts wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists <nixmli...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> There is no certainty. >>> There is only belief. >> >> Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I >> see the problem as arising from a statement made by a Mathematician >> (DJB) about the infallibility of his software when used with certain >> filesystems. >> >> It is understandable for someone from a theoretical field (math) to >> assume that there exists such a thing as certainty in real life... >> but unacceptable in a software engineer. This kind of magical/deluded >> thinking is what makes his software undesirable. >> >> the unnamed individual (with such great faith in his mail system that >> he uses gmail to correspond with us) is actually performing the >> valuable function of helping me compose interview questions to weed >> out undesirable job applicants, so let's try to keep this thread >> going as long as possible. >> > > DJB does great work and thinks about his code. Like every great > programmer, DJB wants his code to be as "correct" as possible within the > very well known bounding limitations (hardware, compilers, operating > systems, file system code, and so forth). Though he knows the > limitations better than most, his writings intend to *CONVINCE* you of > the correctness of *his* code and methods (within said bounds), so he > doesn't elaborate on the supposedly "known" limitations and he > expects you to already understand them.
You make an interesting point. Why would it be necessary/useful to use rhetoric to convince people about the quality of one's code? ben
