Hi, Paul.

PE> PE> PE> software like your reader.  Another solution is to ask
the reader

PE> PE> FM> The solution is not to have brain-dead software designed by
PE> brain-dead
PE> PE> FM> 'C' programmers who use NULLs to define the end of things.

PE> PE> As opposed to your vaporware, with 0 bugs, you mean?  Is that the

PE> FM> *My* software is neither vapourware nor especially buggy. Let's take

PE> Where can I FREQ it from?  If it's not FREQable, it's vaporware,
PE> just like OS/2 4.0.

Interesting definition of "vapourware", on that basis Corel Draw is
vapourware - you can't freq that. What do you want me to do? Upload it
to TML? Why? You wouldn't use it, you don't even like it. And it's in
Pascal so you couldn't recompile it if you didn't like the way it
doesn't do some things (there are at at least 2 documented, possibly
others not, design decisions which could well be not how someone else
would want it to act). Oh, and it doesn't have an "explicit public
domain message".

PE> FM> PKTJOIN as an example, that's a very simple program, hard to get wrong.
PE> FM> My version, written in Pascal of course, has 2 fewer bugs than yours -
PE> FM> maybe 3, I can't work out whether 2 of the problems in yours are
PE> FM> actually manifestations of the same bug. I suspect it checks for more
PE> FM> potential error conditions than yours too, but I don't wish to delve
PE> FM> into arcane C syntax to find out.

PE> You're probably running an old version of PKTJOIN, it now has

I'm *running* my version of PktJoin. The PQWK260 archive from which I
have been examining the source to yours is dated 22/5/95.

PE> error checking on the writing, and there have been NO reported
PE> bugs.  And don't bother trying to say that misuse of the program
PE> counts as a bug.

Robust software responds gracefully to misuse.

PE> FM> Sure it's not portable, but I have no need or intention of running
PE> FM> PKTJOIN on a MVS-based mainframe.

PE> Some people want to run it on OS/2 32-bit.  Well, if they were
PE> going to run it at all.  Linux is another requirement for any
PE> software I use in the long term, as that's where I want to end
PE> up going.

Then they/you can run yours, and take the risk.

PE> FM> I value bug-free and robustness above
PE> FM> portability.

PE> If it isn't portable, it doesn't exist at all when it comes time
PE> for me to run Linux.

Consider it non-existent then, if you want to propose that as a
criterion for existence. In the meantime, it continues to work just fine
here.

PE> FM> And as well as having at least those 2 fewer bugs,

PE> Likely a complete lie.

I think we've discussed one before, the other one (or two, maybe the
same bug) I identified while coding mine and checking to see how you'd
implemented some possible failure modes. You hadn't.

PE> FM> it's 30% faster than yours

PE> It may well be 30% faster than the one you have, but there is no
PE> way in the world that it would be faster than the one I could
PE> write if I had wanted to.  I would do so, except I don't have your
PE> vaporware one available to keep you honest.

Well create some PKTs which you think are big enough to fairly test it
and run your best version on them. Let me freq them and I'll run mine.
I'll certainly believe your times, why would you want to lie in an
objective evaluation? Or do you *really* want me to upload it?

PE> FM> and both the source and executable are smaller.

PE> That I can't be sure of, only the speed.

Yes you can, I just told you.

PE> FM> Wow! I think I've hit a hot-button here! :-) Let's just say I prefer
PE> the
PE> FM> programs I write and use to work and be robust, and easily
PE> maintainable.

PE> Vaporware you write.  Yeah, between your PKTJOIN and Bob's
PE> PKT2QWK, you've got the most impressive collection of vaporware
PE> I've ever NOT seen yet.  BFN.  Paul.

It exists, it works, it runs here 1 or 2 times every day. Bob's PKT2QWK
also exists, I've now seen it. I don't know how well it works but Bob
seems to be running it.

Regards, fIM.

 * * A female Sysop is a Sysopette!
@EOT:

---