Well, actually, so do I, but we're a vanishing species.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Paul Hanrahan > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:12 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Memory access faults. > > > I do > > -----Original Message----- > From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Hall, > Ken (IDS ECCS) > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Memory access faults. > > > Recovery is only as good as the language framework allows it to be. > Compilers insulate you from the data and the hardware, and > reduce your level > of control over how errors are handled. > > But that's part of what you're buying by using a compiler in the first > place: Not to have to worry about all those "little details". > > Assembler programs have access to interrupt exits that allow recovery > routines to get control. An infinitely smart programmer > could conceivably > write enough code to fix or recover from ANY failure, but how > many of THOSE > are there? And who writes in assembler anymore anyway? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of > > David Boyes > > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:52 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Memory access faults. > > > > > > > The problem with laying this at the feet of the application > > > programmer is that they are not perfect, and when the > program fails > > > it actually the end user that suffers. > > > > Unfortunately, that's about the only place it *can* go. Users can't > > (or shouldn't be able to) change the code on the fly, or, if they > > can, they're > > better than the developer -- or at least, a lot more bored > > and have way too > > much free time. > > > > Methinks that it mostly results from not probing your > environment at > > startup to determine what the limitations are, and then doing more > > rigorous checking > > that you don't violate those limits during operation. Way too many > > programmers assume infinite resources and don't cope with > > failure to acquire > > same. > > > > While we're airing pet peeves: why do people assume that changing > > programming languages will somehow fix this problem? It's just as > > possible to write rotten Java as rotten C or Fortran (in fact, it's > > possible to write > > bad Fortran in *any* programming language...8-)), and IDE's > > and all the > > other stuff doesn't fix bad programming practices any more > > than a fancy > > grease gun fixes seized bearings. It helps, but fused is > still fused. > > > > (yes, it's been Tuesday all over. grump.) > > > > -- db > > >
