New to the list

Kevin Handy kth at
Thu Aug 3 14:55:50 CDT 2006

Don Y wrote:

> Exactly.  But, moreso, it also decreases reliability.  How often
> do we see the same "buffer overrun" bugs creeping into code?
> Wasn't OO design, C++, "design by contract" supposed to BURY
> all of those little problem issues in a way that would make
> them go away FOREVER??  I.e. shouldn't classes take care of
> the details of pushing/appending bytes to a buffer so the
> developer doesn't have to *count* them??

Except that few are using C++, and many of those that do
(i.e. kde) have decided that the STL classes are too bloated
because of the boundry checks, and write their own, saving
you an amazing 0.00001% on runtime with only 10% more

> Also, I think people fail to realize how much faster their machines
> *are* because they keep piling on fatter and fatter bloatware.
> Does KDE *really* need to be that big??

It takes memory to re-implement all those STL classes, the
string class, etc.

> My favorite text editor (including emacs) is Brief (for DOS).
> I take out version 1.1 and run it on a 400MHz machine and it
> *flies*.  I can't even imagine what it would do on a 2GHz box!
> Yet, it does everything I want, runs as a text console (though
> uses "line graphics" for the frames of it's "windows"), etc.

It was probably written entirely in machine language,
and with all the DOS limitations built in (8.3 file names,
640K, direct access to hardware, etc). Updating it to another
CPU or operating system  would be a *lot* of work.

> Shame Borland never rereleased it after they bought it
> (or, better yet, open sourced it!)
Probably too much "licensed" extras in it, or too "ugly"
to release the source for. Most likely they just don't want
to be bothered about it.

> Yup.  Like constantly telling me I misspelled something instead
> of letting me ASK you if I've misspelled anything (or, compromise,
> *remind* me to ask you...)
Being genetically incapable of spelling anything the same way
twice in a row, I like the auto-spellcheck feature.

> Exactly.  The "polish and shine" *quickly* fade.
> In the 80's, a friend was doing video [arcade] game design.  I
> recall reviewing a pre-alpha copy of his game and being wow'ed
> by one of the effects.  A few minutes later, when the effect should
> next have appeared, I was disappointed that this second instance
> wasn't anywhere near as spectacular as the first.
> I pointed that out to him.
> He replied that it was deliberate.  The effect had random elements
> in it to ensure that it didn't appear the same each time.  This
> was puzzling:  "Why not put out your best effect EACH time?"
> He commented that folks get used to it and then it loses any
> impact.  OTOH, if really great effects appear only occasionally,
> then, when they DO appear, they get noticed.
> Sort of like wondering why the fireworks show doesn't have
> the same intensity as the finale ALL THE TIME!  :>
> How many people TODAY look at images of crumpled paper flying
> into a wastebasket and go "Ooooo.... Ahhhhh...."?
If you can't blind them with brilliance, give them a flash
of non-mediocracy.

More information about the cctech mailing list