#: 5758 S15/Hot Topics
    01-Aug-90  08:33:39
Sb: #5747-#OSK - passwords?
Fm: Pete Lyall 76703,4230
To: Scott t. Griepentrog 72427,335 (X)

Scott -

There's a saying in the industry (and probably in several industries) that
states: "Standards are wonderful, especially because there are so many to
choose from". I'm guessing that needs no additional garnishment or explanation.

I never said we should chain ourselves to Unix. I just said, be compatible with
it wherever *possible*. If the situation truly dictates a fresh approach, so be
it.

On the issue of _you_ developing what you think may be candidates for being a
standard in the future.... hmmm. If you really are interested in that sort of
work, I think your approach is off. Standards are not evolved or developed in a
vaccum. Why haven't you solicited input, or asked for discussion on design
strategies with the OS9 community as a whole if this is your intent? If you
just want to develop your own libraries, and code uniquely, that's certainly
your option. If you want to try to replace existing standard methods, that's a
whole different ball game.

I can't understand the non-use of printf().. if you were so concerned about its
performance overhead, then you could have written a replacement printf that
could be linked in in its stead. That's perfectly legitimate S/W engineering
practice. You implied that you don't even use printf().. if that's the case
(unless you're just using write(), which can ultimately be more expensive),
your library/approach wil break programs for years to come. Is it worth an x%
speed increase to force a rewrite of a program? Not in  most situations
(exceptions are possible). And I know about

speed and real time requirements.. I used to be lead S/W engineer for the
Tartar Mk 76 surface missile systems (Navy).


Pete

P.S. I never did receive the first issue of the OSK'er, yet I had given you my
name and address here. It's 524 Kitty St, Newbury Park, CA, 91320.

There is 1 Reply.