On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:01:53 -0500 nixlists <nixmli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:11 PM, J.C. Roberts > <list-...@designtools.org> wrote: > >DJB does great work and thinks about his code. Like every great > > programmer, DJB wants his code to be as "correct" as possible > > within the very well known bounding limitations (hardware, > > compilers, operating systems, file system code, and so forth). > > Though he knows the > > Could this thread please not be diverted to a discussion about the > people behind the software? Otherwise flamewars and hate speech are > looming. I am trying to understand the technical issues, not > inter-personal quibbles. > My anonymous friend, you need to accept *PEOPLE* write software. Those little things like experience, skills, and even personality are present in the output of programmers. > > limitations better than most, his writings intend to *CONVINCE* you > > of the correctness of *his* code and methods (within said bounds), > > so he doesn't elaborate on the supposedly "known" limitations and he > > expects you to already understand them. > > > > Constantly bringing up all the limitations where things fail > > detracts from the intent to convince you of correctness. Though > > some consider not elaborating on the limitations as being > > incomplete or unfair, not mentioning them is actually a great > > application of rhetoric and serves his purpose very well. > > Rhetoric implies saying something. Not saying something means not > using rhetoric. He is making claims about his software. The fact that > what he says about queue reliability implies that FFS and hardware > work as they should for the queue to be crash-proof. The fact that he > does not talk much about hardware limitations isn't the same as using > rhetoric. In any case this is a diversion of the thread to a > different topic. > You need to read up on the "Trivium" (Logic, Rhetoric, and Grammar). Rhetoric is the use of language to instruct and persuade. Sadly, these days most people misinterpret the term as something maligned, rather than complimentary. None the less, when the goal is to persuade, the *use* of language includes knowing what not to say. DJB is quite gifted in both Logic and Rhetoric. Most people can learn a whole lot from him. > > If you don't already know the limitations, then you'll get the false > > impression of him claiming infallibility, and you'll be very easily > > Where did you see him mention infallibility? There's a difference > between a crash-proof queue feature and infallibility. Ben Calvert stated "infallibility," so I should have put it in quotes, or you should read more carefully. I refuted Ben's statement, since as far as I know, Dan has never claimed infallibility. Unfortunately, by using "crash-proof" as your description, you are in essence stating infallibility once again (sigh)... *THAT* is the trouble with Dan's writing; he expects you to understand that his code should be correct (and efficient) *WITHIN* certain bounds/limitations, albeit without stating the limitations. Dan regularly does great work, and he explains his code operation far more elaborately than the vast majority of software developers, but if you keep repeatedly spouting nonsense like "crash-proof" on this list, then you're just repeatedly asking for an argument that you'll never win. Please stop. -jon
