On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:17:16PM +0100, Lourens Veen wrote: > On Thu 8 January 2004 18:42, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Lourens Veen wrote: > > > On Thu 8 January 2004 17:07, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:24:22PM +0100, Joerg Schilling > wrote: > > > > > It _is_ wrong to assume that a random program compiled for > > > > > OS revision A will run correctly on OS revision B > > > > > > > > Definetly NOT. > > > > > > > > e.g. "grep". > > > > > > Aaargh! > > > > > > Perhaps we should communicate in proposition logic instead af > > > English? Jörg is right, it is wrong to assume that any random > > > program compiled for OS revision A will run correctly on OS > > > revision B. If you disagree, you have to show that every single > > > possible program _will_ work, not just give one example. > > > > If you say it this way, then you even have to say: > > > > You can't assume that a random programm compiled for OS Revision > > A.0.0.0.0.0 will run correctly on OS revision A.0.0.0.0.1 > > > > They MAY be a subtle bug that prevents the 10thousands program to > > run correctly. > > Agreed. Ofcourse, if you start assuming that there are bugs, > anything might happen and the entire discussion is moot.
Exactly. I would say: It is save to assume that a system independend program has a chance of 99% to work in the next Revision. Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]