From: jgostin@eternal.chi.il.us (Jeff Gostin)
Newsgroups: comp.bbs.waffle
Subject: Re: The woes of ^Z
Date: 4 Jan 93 06:55:07 GMT
Organization: The little node that could...

phil@miracle.com (Phil Hill) writes:

> You missed the mark here a little.  I am not a programmer, not a user.  This
> is what enables me to see what is going on here.  I'm not attacking Tom, I'm
> mearly commenting on the ^Z problem (?).  I've had to address hundreds of bug
     I take it as such... :-) After all, Tom's a big boy, he can defend
himself! ;-)

> like this one.  Often I have taken the *LAZY* approach, and not bothered to
> fix such a problem.  If I were placed in charge of Waffle, I'd probably make
> the decision not to fix the ^Z problem.  I consider this a *LAZY* decision,
> because the *PROPER* thing to do is fix the problem.
Hmmm... I'm not sure if I agree with this in practice. In theory, yes, it
is the proper thing to do.

> >     I would tend to disagree with this statement, Phil. What we are
> >arguing about here is a matter of programming preference. Firstly, just
> >because it doesn't work the way you WANT it to does NOT make it a bug. It
> >just makes a gripe, which is a seperate, but equal issue. To call it a bug
> No.  You are wrong here.  First, anything that causes any customer complaints
> must be considered a bug.  Second, anything that makes Waffle different on
> DOS and UNIX must be concidered a bug.  And Third, anything that doesn't work
> the way it *SHOULD* is a bug.  The ^Z problem meets at least two of these
> conditions.
     Again, we differ. Don't get me wrong, there -is- a problem here, if
what you are saying is true. (I don't doubt you, I just plea ignorance).
Again, not true. If I say to Mitsubishi, "I think this car should go
faster", according to your argument, Mitsubishi MUST consider my compalint
an acknowledgement of a design flaw and seek to "correct" it.

     On your second point, I would disagree in practice. In -theory- you
are correct. I don't have my "bug" classification chart here, but I
-think- an "touchy-feelie" problem classifies as a D3, althought I could
be [very] wrong. Basically, this classification was designed to handle
what you are talking about-- It doesnt work the way you would expect it
to, but it does work, no?

> My main gripe with this thread is the number of people (like you) who like
> to sit back and say "talk to Microsoft," it's their problem.  IT IS NOT DOS'S
     Nope... it ain't -THEIR- problem. We're talking about areas of grey
here.  Some say that software should accomodate for the O/S, or hardware,
while others say that bad O/S's and bad hardware should be fixed, and
software should work (the purists' view).

> TEXT mode does TWO things, it treats CRLF as a line delimiter, and it
[...]
> off the CR.  One whole line of code.
I was summarizing... :-)

> The most important argument is that **WAFFLE** doesn't treat ^Z's the same
> when run on a UNIX system.  It is important that Waffle remain compatible wit
> itself.  Or to at least document the difference.
     That is because UNIX treats 'em differently. I am of the opinion that
software should -NOT- dance around O/S "limitations". Its bad programming,
IMHO. You can put all the fingers you want into the dike, but it doesnt
stop the leak.

          Lotsa smileys for the anti-flame brigade... This is still a
friendly conversation (is not!!! Ooops... that slipped! ;-})

                         --Jeff


...From a tiny little node called Eternal!
--
    /|Email  to:   jgostin@eternal.chi.il.us, offline@infopls.chi.il.us
   / |Smail  to:   Jeff Gostin, 917 High Ridge Pass, Carol Stream IL 60188
   \ |Vmail  to:   708-293-5526
    \|Flames to:   trashcan@eternal.chi.il.us