Another example is using emalloc in libraries. I agree that it is
much simpler to just give up when there is not enough memory (which
is also not very likely case), but is that how the code is supposed
to be written if you are not doing research?
Thanks,
Lucho
On Jun 9, 2006, at 4:44 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
On 6/9/06, Roman Shaposhnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:05:12PM -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
> Too bad the example a beginning programmer
> sees now is the cess pool of open source cruft instead of well-
written
> code.
And that would be the second most useful thing about Plan 9 -- its
source code as a literature for educating oneself how the code is
supposed to be written.
Thanks,
Roman.
Except /sys/src/9/pc/pci.c that says it badly needs to be rewritten.
Maybe a slightly less Kool-Aid drinking way to approach this would be
to say "code that needs help is better marked, and there's less of
that?"
Then again. I've not personally audited the whole system, and it's
not clear that I have the qualifications to say that Plan 9's source
is better than other systems.
There's a lot of "belief" here that I think is "fundamentally"
dangerous... as with anything.
I say this partially tongue-in-cheek. I think sometimes people don't
question a thing because they don't want to seem unpopular to the
group they're speaking to :-). I think that's wrong.
Then again maybe I'm just paranoid.
