Linux-Advocacy Digest #593, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 22:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! ("Adam Warner")
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? (sfcybear)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (sfcybear)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (mlw)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! ("Adam Warner")
Re: Poor Linux (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (J Sloan)
Re: KDE Hell ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:06:23 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:41:02 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JS PL wrote:
>>
>> That story kind of reminds me about how my mp3 player in Linux plays exactly
>> 1 mp3 per system boot. I try to make it a good choice since I get to only
>> play one until I reboot though.
>
>You sure fucked up your configuration then.
>Or you're absolutely lying. What a wienie.
Even if Windows exhibited the same sort of behaivor, I would
be loathe to use such an anecdote to bash it. That just sounds
too bizzare to be believed.
[deletia]
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:59:02 GMT
To respond to your topic, yes it is all about uptime.
I am sick to death of working for hours on something for my boss in Word
or Excel or Project and being the innocent victim of the "illegal
operation" popup. And no matter what I try to do to recover, I
invariably end up rebooting to fix it.
I get victimized daily by Windows, I don't get the same from Linux.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:12:28 +1200
Hi "sfcybear",
>
http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
That is absolutely amazing. And it will easily be the most powerful parallel
supercomputer in the world! (for a little while anyway :-)
I it was relevant, it would certainly bring a whole new meaning to the cost
of an OS upgrade!
I wonder exactly what the Celera Genomics Group will be doing with all that
processing power (maybe they also saw The Sixth Day ;-)
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:06:45 GMT
In article <94aod9$h8b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WOW!
>
>
http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Yeah, I just posted that one too. I was almost tempted to cross-post to
one of the MSFT NGs, but that woulda been just too mean. Heck, MSFT
don't even run on Alphas anymore.
But that's a good thing(tm); can you imagine how many MCSEs it would
take to reboot 20,000 servers on a weekly schedule?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:22:12 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> semi-random? As in "I posted the sites that met my criteria".
It appears to be a random selection of some well known sites.
> You can have
> 100 sites with 10 year uptimes, but if you have 10,000 sites with 1 day
> utimes you're average is going to be quite low.
Thanks for the statistics refresher -
> Since you chose to ONLY
> include high uptimes in what you posted, that is not a valid statistic.
What makes you think he chose high uptimes?
LOL!
My Linux servers have been up over a year, the uptimes
he quoted were completely unremarkable for any Unix
system.
OTOH I can guess I could see how you'd be so impressed
that you thought he had cherry picked the high ones...
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:20:49 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Decides what is popular, acceptable, "defacto", "norm". Come on, is it
> >really THIS hard to comprehend?
>
> Boy, did you step in it there, Kyle. How can the consumer determine
> "the norm". The only thing they can do is determine their choice. You
> need to take the result of many different consumers, a "market", in
> fact, in order to determine what is 'popular', or 'de facto', or 'the
> norm'. A free market.
Microsoft's software is at every computer store in America, Software for
Microsoft's software is at every computer store in America. Apple software
is at specialty computer stores in America, software for Apple's software
for Apple's hardware is at specialty stores in America...
The consumer has always had a choice, and has always known it. The consumer
has decided on the IBM/PC platform, and therefor has gone with Microsoft
Windows as their OS. The consumer has known about Apple Computer, their
products, and has reduced the company to number two on the desktop market.
The consumer seems to have decided, the consumer may not be happy, and the
consumer is willing to undertake an alternative OS. Show the consumer
something that can hold a candle to Microsoft's Windows, and they will
abandon their previous choice.
The consumer will not be willing to wait much longer. Linux has the
spotlight NOW, it won't two years from now if something spectacular in the
Linux desktop field happens. Corel Linux showed Desktop Linux was possible,
now, Linux Mandrake and Storm Linux are showing it. But they are all
hindered from their true purpose of the "User friendly Linux" by the
underlying structure of an OS that frankly, change be changed at the drop of
a RedHat...
> >And in the case of Apple?
>
> Apple makes computers. Microsoft doesn't. Obviously, they serve
> different markets.
Apple makes computers, AND software for those computers. Apple is also
number two on the platform scale. So, again, clearly the consumer had a
choice...
> >I have no doubt that Windows 95, 98 & Me's
> >popularity was derived from Microsoft's MSDOS popularity, but it was
popular
> >for a reason.
>
> Yea; its called a per-processor licensing agreement. It illegally locks
> OEMs into providing the perpetrator with monopoly power, as long as they
> start with market power. Where they got the market power is beside the
> point, but it mostly has to do with overselling shoddy goods.
Those shoddy goods made it into someones home, because they are still on
top, which is sort of the point, Microsoft is STILL number one.
> >More popular than IBM DOS was, and Windows 95 was WAY more
> >popular than OS/2 Warp was, despite the dual marketing blitz.
>
> IBM DOS, which was PC-DOS, BTW, was just a relabeled MS-DOS, with some
> of the executables replaced. And Windows 95 was a monopoly, so despite
> any "market blitz", Microsoft prevented OS/2 Warp from competing on
> merits.
How was Windows 95 a monopoly? Microsoft made a decision to offer a product
which most people concidered superior. Even though it was a structural
nightmare (and the usage data was just not present to prove it) OS/2 Warp
WAS available. Initaly, Windows 95's biggest sales came from people buying
the "upgrades". Followed by OEM's and their OSR revisions (something
Microsoft doesn't like to talk about, and we all know why...)
OS/2 was available. It wasn't selling. The consumer decided again which
they prefered. IBM even bundeled Windows 95 with their Aptiva systems WITH
OS/2 Warp at the convienence of a "dual-boot". Guess which one got more
attention by the user...?
> >I don't agree with this point. In 1988, the average PC user knew way
more
> >about their PC's then they do today.
>
> No, the typical person new way more, because they were more likely to
> have a good deal of expertise, since there were fewer users. The
> average PC user was probably about the same. Which just goes to show
> how disfunctional the market has been.
It shows that "back then" the more savvy user landed on Microsoft products.
Even when they knew that other products existed, they made a choice based on
superiority and price, not popularity.
Now, we have people who just buy along the "upgrade trend", but the people
would be willing to change, if they thought they had a REAL alternative.
> >Windows has made this possible.
>
> Prove it.
The average computer user knows NOTHING about the innards of their PC. They
don't feel they have too. Windows has now made using a PC the level of easy
we never thought possible during the MSDOS days.
Which is why Linux zealots feel obligated to call Windows users dumb.
> >MS-DOS & Windows 1, & 2still did not. Windows 3 didn't either, but 3.1
> >began to make headway. Some might argue this is because more people were
> >interested in PC's, and the idea that it's not as diffucult as "C:\>"
> >anymore.
>
> Some might argue that DOS, and pre-3.1 Windows, simply sucked much worse
> than Windows 3.1, which still sucked, but not so much Microsoft couldn't
> use their monopoly power to force the public to accept it.
Microsoft didn' thave "monopoly power" in 1993 They had a popular product
(which wasn't really that popular, because NOTHING good was for Windows back
then). Microsoft's major power came from the huge takeoff of Windows 95,
and the massive news that "computing is easier" which invited regular
consumers to actually use computers
> >> >> >Linux has no quality software.
> >
> >> >> You have yet to demonstrate that in even the vaguest manner.
> >
> >> >Haven't I? Aside from you people in COLA, who the hell is running
Linux
> >on
> >>
> >> Not in the slightest.
> >
> >Ok, fine. Never mind then.
>
> So you'll stop claiming Linux has no quality software?
No, I'm just tired of hearing that StarOffice, AbiWord and Netscape and The
GIMP are the top crop of modern software. They are awful, and can't clearly
can't compete with their Windows product counterparts (Microsoft Office,
Internet Explorer, and Photoshop).
If they could, companies would begin to openly migrate their workstation
platforms to Linux.
I don't see this happening.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:17:18 GMT
In article <u66a6.975$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Seriously, Winvocates have zero credibility left. If Microsoft
can't
> > > > get NT to stay up on average better than 38 days, how are we
expected
> > > > to believe all these claims that have been made over the last
few
> > > > years about NT staying up indefinately? How are we expected to
> > > > believe the current claims made about W2K?
> > >
> > > Microsoft did not conduct the study. Why do you people always
distort
> the
> > > truth?
> >
> > True, but do you honestly doubt they had nothing to do with the
> > results? They paid for the study, and no study can be released
> > without the prior consent of Microsoft. Microsoft may not have
> > conducted the study, but they certainly had something to do with the
> > results.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that you claimed that Microsoft did
conduct the
> study, stating quite clearly "If Microsoft can't get NT to stay up on
> average better than 38 days, how are we extected to believe all these
> claims..."
>
> Stop distorting the truth.
Ok, yet another source, this on OK'd by MS, quoted and reference by MS,
States that NT only stays up for an average of 38 days and w2K for an
avarage of 4 months. Yeah, W2K tops NT but so does just about any other
OS except for Win9*. And a 4 month average between reboots is not my
idea of a stable system.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:24:53 GMT
In article <1L5a6.972$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Based on nubers from Netcraft and Uptimes I would find this
claim hard
> > > > to believe. Just guessing without documentation to back it up is
> hardly
> > > > being realistic.
> > >
> > > Really? Why don't you list every Linux system listed in Netcrafts
> database
> > > and give the average uptime of all of them combined.
> > >
> > > I'll bet you it'll be a lot worse than the MTTF listed in this
report.
> > >
> > > Provide the statistics, since you claim to have them.
> >
> > I have already posted a semi-random selection of uptimes from
Netcraft,
> mostly
> > including sites run by the software's own vendors. Linux beat W2K
by over
> > 4:1.
>
> semi-random? As in "I posted the sites that met my criteria". You can
have
> 100 sites with 10 year uptimes, but if you have 10,000 sites with 1
day
> utimes you're average is going to be quite low. Since you chose to
ONLY
> include high uptimes in what you posted, that is not a valid
statistic.
The numbers for netcraft show about the same thing as the numbers from
uptimes.org. a while back I put forth a interesting little fact. If you
took ALL the uptime attriobuted to ALL of the MS OS's listed at
uptime.org and attributed ALL that time to the W2K servers then used
THAT number to calculate the aveage uptime for W2K, W2K's average uptime
is still less than Linux's average uptimes!
Here is the method I used (the numbers are out dated now):
http://x76.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=5&AN=702846300.1&mhitnum=6&CONTEXT=976374076.1878327313
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:47:42 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should hold
> > > enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then park, but
> > > aparently the drive doesn't do this.
> >
> > You are so full of it.
> >
> > Microsoft has been dealing with this problem for at least a year. If you
> > reference this Knowledge base article:
> >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q153/2/96.asp
>
> Note this text from the above document:
>
> "The IDE/ATAPI specification does not define a command to determine if a
> write cache is present or to explicitly flush the cache. "
>
> There is no way for the OS to know when the cache is fully flushed. As
> such, it can only wait a certain amount of time and then shut down, hoping
> it's flushed. When IBM added a bigger cache to a slower drive, it caused a
> much larger flush time and Windows didn't know anything about it.
>
> Of course the OS has to be patched to wait longer, since the OS must deal
> with whatever quirks the hardware presents, but the true fault is with both
> the ATAPI spec for not providing a command, and IBM for not providing enough
> reserve capacitance to allow the drive to flush and park.
Then how do the have a patch for NT 4.0? Shouldn't they have been
checking this in QA as a known problem? Obviously any idiot should have
known if they had a problem, they should be checking for it.
>
> > The last review date is March 2000.
>
> And?
And they have had a year that they have know this was a potential
problem. And OH! surprise, it bit them again. Pathetic.
>
> > They knew about this problem and didn't test for it in QA. They have a
> > patch for NT 4.0 and 3.51.
>
> Probably because the drives didn't exist then. Windows NT writes much more
> data on shutdown than Windows 98 does, since NTFS uses write-back caching.
> FAT/FAT32 do not, therefore it wasn't a problem in 98 until IBM released the
> slower drive with larger cache.
Oh, bogus, you're kidding right? I don't know how you can write this
stuff. They knew they had a problem with shutting down a machine with a
write cache hard disk. They should have been checking this. Any
competent company would. There is no excuse.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:46:20 GMT
JS PL wrote:
> That story kind of reminds me about how my mp3 player in Linux plays exactly
> 1 mp3 per system boot. I try to make it a good choice since I get to only
> play one until I reboot though.
Well alrighty then!
I have a Linux nfs server with a collection of mp3s on the
lan at work; the mp3 directory gets automounted on my Linux
workstation when I want to hear some sounds. I use something
called xmms, which came with my helix gnome desktop.
You know, the funny thing is, I play mp3s all day every day,
and I can't ever seem to remember having to reboot.
Could it be you're just another lying wintroll?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:48:45 +1200
Hi pac4854,
> Yeah, I just posted that one too. I was almost tempted to cross-post to
> one of the MSFT NGs, but that woulda been just too mean. Heck, MSFT
> don't even run on Alphas anymore.
According to Chad it doesn't matter. So there!
"What does it matter?
"To answer your question, Win2K will run on any platform that it's ported
to."
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:52:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I can see how much support Creative has for Linux.
> Linux isn't even listed in the operating systems box when you try to
> download drivers.
>
> http://www.soundblaster.com/drivers/
>
>
> Golly gee, I just found them, buried in the Beta driver section with a
> date of 4/30/99.
Poor clair/steve/flatso/whatever -
What he doesn't realise is that the SBLive sound drivers
are now part of the Linux kernel, so of course the first alpha
drivers that creative put out there back on 4/30/99 have
been superseded & are no longer relevant.
Gee, what's this on my system?
Creative EMU10K1 PCI Audio Driver, version 0.7, 21:59:44 Jan 16 2001
PCI: Found IRQ 5 for device 00:0a.0
emu10k1: EMU10K1 rev 6 model 0x8027 found, IO at 0xb400-0xb41f, IRQ 5
What's that date - January 16?
ROFL
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:57:41 -0500
Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:949quf$ljt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <kvl96.136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average
> > > desktop *IS*
> > > > shutdown at night.
> > >
> > > This is an artifact of the historical unreliability of MS operating
> > > systems. Unix/Linux workstations are never shutdown at night.
> >
> > Tell that to your average "save the world" do gooder that insists on
> > turning
> > everything off to save the ecology. So called "green PC's" were invented
> > to help shut these people up.
> >
> > > > > Well, there you have it, plain and simple. A study, funded by
> > > Microsoft,
> > > > > that proves that while 2K is better than NT, it still sucks.
> > > >
> > > > The way they count failure is "unplanned reboot". Also note that
> > > they used
> > > > beta versions of 2000 for the study (they also used the released
> > > version,
> > > > but beta's were also used).
> > >
> > > NO
> > > And I repeat NO NO NO
> > > They were not counting "unplannned reboot" they were counting "abnormal
> > > shutdown". Read the study (which is woefully short on details). So if
> > > the whole system has gone to hell (barely responsive, short on
> > > resources, etc.) and you reboot "voluntarily" before it completely
> > > freezes/bsods on you, this counts as a "normal shutdown" and doesn't
> > > count against the reliability numbers.
> >
> > And you're still ignoring the fact that they used *BETA* versions of the
> > OS. Several beta versions, some of which were known to be unstable.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Sure, and the sys-admins were not up to the task, right, Erik?
> Miss that, because thats one of your main excuses why Wintendo crashes
Translation: Windows Admins are FUCKING IDIOTS!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:59:30 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Right. 500 "My Cat Fluffy" websites vs 500 e-Commerce Fortune 500
> company web sites means the same thing.
> Well, if you look at it, IIS has the lead (or iPlanet according
> to some lists) in the business sector which gets much more traffic
> than the "My Cat Fluffy" web sites which Apache seems to have the
> stronghold in.
Sorry, your rants aren't squaring with reality -
deja, google, and amazon are not "my cat fluffy" websites.
neither are toyota.com or lexus.com, or any of the websites
that are hosted on those same apache servers.
The really huge, fast sites are almost always running apache
on Unix - it's the the low traffic corporate brochureware
sites that are sometimes microsoft pc powered -
jjs
>
>
> >
> > The crux of your complaint is this:
> >
> > Many windows pc servers are combined to power a single
> > website, while a single Unix server is capable of powering
> > many websites
>
> Many low-traffic low-visit web sites. IIS can do this to, but
> it's typically not used for that because you're wasting a lot
> of power of IIS by using it on these low-traffic web sites.
>
> However, Apache is perfect for this.
>
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:09:02 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:21:22 GMT, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >
>
> >The perl philosophy is that if a language prevents you from doing
> >bad things it will likewise prevent you from doing good things. I
> >agree, at least to the point that I would not expect any programmer
> >who counts on the compiler to keep him from making mistakes to
> >ever do anything great.
>
>
> Failing to read documentation for private class members is not a
> "mistake".
Really? Is it good practice to try to use any variable, function, or
method that the compiler will allow you to access whether you
know what it does or not? I'd rather think that if the compiler
has to enforce the 'private' concept that the programmer did
something wrong in the first place.
> As for "counting on the compiler to prevent him from making
> mistakes", well I thought most of the supposed benefits of
> interpreted languages was that they made it harder to make
> mistakes (for example, with memory management). THerefore, I would
> expect that a good interpreted language should not be unnecessarily
> error prone.
There are some differences in concepts, particularly with typing
since interpreted languages tend to more closely approximate
normal human interpretation of input where numbers can be
both numeric and text at the same time. That doesn't make the
programming logic or language syntax any simpler.
> Another point about compilers catching errors -- good compilers can
> catch all sorts of fine problems, and issue appropriate warnings.
> While a good programmer shouldn't depend on these sorts of features,
> they certainly make it easier. Note that it's not just dummies who
> use them -- good C/C++ programmers will turn warning levels up high,
> and good perl programmers will put "use strict" in their code and
> use the "-w" option.
Of course - C programmers have always had lint when they want
to check for typos, misspellings, wrong arguments and the like.
> BTW, last I checked, perl doesn't have any kind of exception handling
> mechanism either. IMO it strikes me as being an error prone language
> that's good for duct tape style programming, but unsuited for large
> scale OO projects.
What's wrong with wrapping anything that can fail with an
eval{ .... } and using die to bail from anywhere inside? This
also has the advantage that you can run/test the inner code as
a standalone program and the right thing happens anyway.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
