Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: VMS
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:05:40 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <20250724080540.00004f57@gmail.com>
References: <wCqdnYde9MIbmND1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> <mbmm2nFdsgcU2@mid.individual.net> <slrn105cajs.4vj.spamtrap42@one.localnet> <slrn105g20l.3q8n7.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid> <slrn105k75h.h13.spamtrap42@one.localnet> <wwvpletmv3e.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <slrn105mpkd.q0k.spamtrap42@one.localnet> <KeednUgPwP3EDcb1nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@giganews.com> <20250625093213.00002ec2@gmail.com> <20250625094418.00007fd2@gmail.com> <v_2dnfjqXOtB4sH1nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <105iv02$3cuhr$2@dont-email.me> <wwvzfcy0z3n.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <20250721091242.00007573@gmail.com> <wwvms8x5nsk.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <20250721133148.00007cc6@gmail.com> <105pv2t$77mv$1@dont-email.me> <20250723080407.00004a8a@gmail.com> <105ri4r$ed5t$1@dont-email.me> <20250723142845.000033ee@gmail.com> <105rr9k$fslf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 17:05:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="262772c89a2be8ca6f88917cdb45a4d9"; logging-data="1586365"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qF86kVdRPctlMu8+P9rdm+6lnJYTUo5w="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f7FHNBl4PuX4u9+aIqVLOo5g8so=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:69865

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 00:29:55 +0100
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:

> You appear to have a prejudice for equality. A prejudice that 
> programmers should think hard about every problem they encounter. A 
> prejudice that a simple, but good enough answer is lazy.

I'm not advocating for approaching every aspect of development with a
monomania for absolute ideal design and optimal implementation, and I
have no idea where you're getting that from.

What I *am* saying is that dealing with a certain class of bug-hazards
is inevitable when using tools that don't include built-in safeguards
against them, and that you ignore that - or ward against it via magical
thinking - at your peril. Over-speccing because it's simpler than
working out the Most Optimum answer is one thing; over-speccing because
you hope it'll save you from dealing with genuine bugs is superstitious
folly.

> Given programming time is limited, you are not explaining how this
> strategy improves code reliability, in general.

I wouldn't think I'd *have* to, given how many major security flaws in
the last couple decades have come down to sloppy handling of boundary
issues (Heartbleed, anyone?) - to say nothing of day-to-day foul-ups.