"Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh, puhleeze do teach me how to be a pedantic asshole!
Looks like I'm halfway there already.
>ps: I book marked the url on writing good code. I want to see
>how much if the rules qmail breaks.
The one Craig posted? It's pretty high-level; not like a checklist you
can run through to declare code either "good" or "bad".
qmail's record over its four year history is impressive. Compare the
handful of actual bugs to the scores found in other MTA's like
sendmail and even Postfix over the same time period.
The code may get demerits for lack of documention or whatnot, but in
fact, it's *extremely* solid code.
>pps: example, good software should do the right thing if left
>to its own and should not do stupid things unless severly
>cornered.
"right", "stupid"...hardly objective criteria. Both are determined by
whomever is doing the evaluation.
>Take shi!tty windows. If you type an IP
>into the network box, and you type "831" .. a popup window
>instantly pops up and states that this is not a valid
>input. Of course, why doesn' the same system trigger on the
>second digit input and if its not 0, 1 or 2, simply procced
>to the next octet? To me, that's an example of shitty software
>not doing the right thing.
I don't follow the "second digit should be 0/1/2" bit, but I catch
your drift. I think you're saying that if I enter a number > 255, the
pop-up should assume I skipped a ".". But maybe I just fumble fingered
and hit two keys at once. If the pop-up rearranges things into a valid
(but wrong) IP address--and I don't notice that--I'm going to be
plenty annoyed.
>ppps: I won't even go near all the blasted windows popups that
>steal your focus.
OK.
-Dave
