[Prompted by Sergey's message about the strange dates:
The mess in my headers is entirely my fault.
I have not had a chance to properly finish the
upgrades to this machines: internationalization and
the rest. Please forgive me for this mess]
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Mark P Jones wrote:
> Jan: I don't think you're being very fair.
I stand corrected. But my remarks were out of
love to Hugs, not otherwise, you know! :-)
> Do you really
> know that the failures you demonstrated were due to a bug
> in Hugs? Is it possible that they might have been caused
> by bugs in the program that you were running?
No I don't know it. I had barely enough time to put
all those pieces together in a nice tutorial fashion,
so I could not examine them properly before the
demonstration I was giving. But this program came from
a reputable source, akin to Hugs itself, after all! :-)
I did not have any reason to suspect major problems
there.
> Or perhaps
> you simply didn't have Hugs configured with a big enough
> heap for the size of the bigger problems that you tried?
I run the examples first on one of my resourceless
machines here and fiddling with the heap size would
not help. Later, the demo was being run on a 256Mb machine
where I had a comfort to set a heap size to quite
a large value. Yet, it did not help.
> If it truly was a bug in Hugs, I hope that you reported
> it so that the Hugs maintainers could do something to fix
> it?
No Mark, I did not. I got caught up in some other
problems and forgot all about it.
One of these days I am going to re-examine it again.
This particular program is quite big and I remember
one other curious thing about it: evaluation of
simple expressions (2*3, say) under Hawk prompt
were significantly slower than under Hugs prompt.
Jan
