Christopher Smith wrote:
I'd agree with you were it an *expected* error, but for unexpected
errors, this is not the case.
Note, incidentally, I'm talking about programming errors, including
should-have-been-expected errors like using a file that's already been
closed, opening a socket that's already open by another process, etc.
I'm also talking about programming errors like violating what the
language says you're allowed to do, like using unset variables, running
off arrays, etc.
For errors that *nobody* anticipated, like the CPU not following its own
specs, you have to do Space Shuttle engineering-level work, which nobody
really wants to pay for. Or you have to do Google-level work, making
everything redundant enough that having portions fail is just business
as usual.
And errors where the behavior of the program is exactly as you wrote
rather than exactly as you intended, it's also difficult to compensate.
Not impossible, but difficult, involving more of a structural component
than simple programming choices.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
His kernel fu is strong.
He studied at the Shao Linux Temple.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
