From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re OS/2 Crashproof? NOT!
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:22:20 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <Bxp1so.MIL@news.iastate.edu>, TW.FY4@isumvs.iastate.edu (Timothy I M
iller) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.032039.11251@sequent.com>,
>furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes:
>
>  [Stuff about gracious thanks deleted]
>
>>
>>I second that motion.
>>
>>Not to denegrate the severity or legitimacy of the complaint,
>>because they are real and I have complained bitterly myself at OS/2
>>over similar things, but it sounds like growing pains; those of the
>>OS undergoing maturity, and those of us who have to live through
>>it. Windows 3.X raises similar complaints over bugs, and stupid
>>design in some corners, but after all was said and done, it made
>>the task of finishing much sweeter; especially since it was not
>>going to be repeated anytime soon. I hope you press on and finish
>>the task. You will probably find the satisfaction well worth it,
>>plus the knowledge gained will make you that much more expensive.
>>
>
>     I hate to combine two threads (for the easily confused :-) ),
>but isn't this one of the things that Macintosh people have been
>saved from?  I've heard that the programers are restricted to what
>sort of things they can do to the system, and what modifications
>they can make to the OS.  Does this save them from these odd
>creashes, etc?  Does it affect how programs eventually behave?
>Would it be wise for IBM to eventually come out with *very* strict
>programming rules, so that these crashes wouldn't happen (after they
>have the bugs out of their compiler, that is)?  Do the developers
>think this would help the overall quality of their products, or
>should IBM bust their butts to make sure that everything which runs
>now on OS/2 2.0 will also run on 2.1, etc?  In other words, whose
>responsibility is it?
>
>Timothy Miller
>
This is an excellent point.  Just whose responsibility is it?  Left to their
own devices, programmers will often simply ignore suggestions and do what
seems to be the most logical and fastest solution at the time.  (not always,
but often enough, particularly in games)  On the other hand, by virtue of
their taking advantage of these iffy loopholes, they often can cause system
crashes and other problems.  If IBM comes out with strict rules, they will
have the effect of scaring off some developers, which is something they really
don't wan't to do.  On the other hand, if they don't create enough rules, they
are creating a *Major* headache for themselves and potentially for other
developers as well.  What this all means is that they have to walk somewhere
in the middle.  They should create some devlopment rules, and they need to not
be typical-old-exclusionary-IBM rules too.  MicroSoft seems to generally have
the right idea, their rules are there, but they are usually flexible.  (Maybe a
little too much so in some cases, but that is getting off the point)  They
also need to *think* ahead as to what areas they should restrict, and which
they should leave open.  If there is no good reason to have development rules
for a particular segment of the OS, then don't have any.

-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------