Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #24771 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-23 20:05 +0200 |
| Last post | 2012-09-13 20:39 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 386 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 20:05 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-23 20:28 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 21:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 12:44 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 22:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 14:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-23 22:07 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2012-08-23 16:20 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 22:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 09:33 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 13:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 13:32 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 13:46 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 15:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ozbear@bigpond.com (ozbear) - 2012-08-26 02:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-26 00:19 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ozbear@bigpond.com (ozbear) - 2012-08-27 00:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 13:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language CRNG <Spam@uce.gov> - 2012-08-23 16:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 18:01 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 15:21 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 19:04 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-23 23:26 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 19:14 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 11:35 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 21:03 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 18:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 21:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 21:08 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:41 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 02:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 02:58 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-26 15:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Leo Havmøller <rtxleh@nospam.nospam> - 2012-08-24 06:52 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-23 23:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-24 00:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:18 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Leo Havmøller <rtxleh@nospam.nospam> - 2012-08-24 09:22 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:53 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 03:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 15:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:43 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 03:30 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:11 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:10 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 02:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:58 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:59 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 05:28 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 07:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-25 12:12 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 05:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-25 16:57 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:22 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 10:46 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 11:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:31 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 01:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:36 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 22:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 10:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 04:27 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-01 11:35 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-09-02 00:52 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:21 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:59 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:55 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 00:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:17 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-24 06:33 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 06:47 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:58 -0600
Alternatives to Windows APIs in Metro style apps "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:20 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-24 12:38 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-25 21:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 01:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-27 20:58 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 17:12 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:25 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:03 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:35 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-28 01:13 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-28 01:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:26 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 09:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 02:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 11:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-02 03:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 05:05 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-03 00:32 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 01:16 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 01:03 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-28 18:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-28 20:35 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 21:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 21:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-28 22:29 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:09 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-28 23:16 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 17:24 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:37 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 14:37 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 00:15 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 01:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 02:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 10:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 10:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 13:47 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-29 07:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 16:20 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-29 12:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 20:28 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 14:51 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:32 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:47 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-08-29 19:27 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-08-29 20:07 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:06 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-29 08:21 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 15:37 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 15:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 16:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 11:42 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 14:52 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 07:27 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-29 20:00 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 16:36 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-29 21:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 17:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 03:07 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 21:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 11:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 04:00 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 13:55 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 13:47 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 23:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 17:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-29 18:25 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-30 13:43 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 03:37 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-30 08:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-31 05:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 14:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-30 06:39 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 20:08 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-30 22:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 01:04 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 11:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-30 16:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 12:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 04:40 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-31 17:26 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 08:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-31 12:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-31 20:17 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-31 14:41 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-09-01 00:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 12:48 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-09-02 20:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 17:07 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 12:22 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 20:49 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 18:58 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Paul J Gans <gansno@panix.com> - 2012-09-03 02:15 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 22:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-03 10:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 12:10 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-04 12:16 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-04 12:24 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-09-04 20:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-04 17:38 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2012-09-04 19:34 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 08:26 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 13:40 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 15:30 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 16:05 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 17:01 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 17:21 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 21:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-03 00:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 18:06 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:07 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 18:36 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-02 20:38 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 20:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:25 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-03 11:52 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-01 13:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-01 12:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 12:41 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 14:08 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-01 11:54 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 20:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 08:55 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:43 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-04 09:25 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 17:50 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-04 19:32 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 22:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-04 22:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:13 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-05 08:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-05 07:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-06 17:30 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 13:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 07:13 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 21:25 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-06 15:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 00:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 11:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 22:44 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 18:59 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 01:10 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 22:45 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 05:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 14:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-08 07:16 -0700
Re: Reâ: â¬Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 15:58 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 17:39 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 10:21 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 22:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 15:04 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-09 00:24 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 20:47 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-06 17:22 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 13:12 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-09-06 08:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 16:57 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:40 +0300
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 22:46 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-10 17:02 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 22:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-11 11:13 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 22:44 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 07:18 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 21:11 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-06 16:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 02:27 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-06 15:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-09-08 09:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-08 01:23 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-10 10:48 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-02 15:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 21:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 14:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 12:55 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 19:21 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-01 21:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 02:04 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 19:07 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-31 11:57 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-31 11:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-31 21:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 11:54 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-30 08:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 14:57 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-28 21:19 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-28 22:07 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 14:36 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 09:40 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:13 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 01:01 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 22:26 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-02 12:28 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 16:48 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language timprince <tprince@computer.org> - 2012-08-25 23:20 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 20:55 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 02:24 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 10:45 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 03:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Tim Prince <tprince@nospamcomputer.org> - 2012-08-26 11:01 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 13:53 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 21:54 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 08:52 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 01:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 11:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 04:07 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 13:09 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 09:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 16:36 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:18 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-28 13:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 10:03 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-08-31 17:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:12 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-03 11:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:22 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-03 12:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 19:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:34 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:26 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 02:53 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:36 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-02 03:17 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 04:37 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 00:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 11:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 03:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 11:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 05:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 15:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-26 15:22 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:38 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-27 10:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 02:42 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-27 20:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-28 10:51 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-28 03:52 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-28 12:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 18:25 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-29 11:25 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-26 11:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:01 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 07:33 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 00:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-26 11:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-26 14:22 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:30 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-26 22:43 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 00:32 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-27 01:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:42 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 03:00 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 10:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 04:14 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 04:18 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 10:56 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 03:40 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-27 04:05 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 15:13 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 23:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:16 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 01:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-28 14:10 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 17:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:45 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 10:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 02:54 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 13:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 23:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 13:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 00:20 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 15:24 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2012-08-27 00:48 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-13 19:46 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-13 13:32 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-13 20:39 +0000
Page 11 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 20 Next page →
| From | Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 08:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k272bc$95l$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25933 |
Dnia Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:46:55 -0700, Keith Thompson napisal: > Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> writes: > [...] >> That is not the point - at least for a reasonable HA system. > [...] > > HA means "High Availability", yes? Yes. I always forget not to use acronyms outside of context. -- Edel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 13:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k208s1$3rn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25657 |
Anders Wegge Keller wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > >> On 31-Aug-12 06:40, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote: > >>> I find it acceptable to crash a couple times a year > >> You may, but many/most of us, our employers and our customers do >> not. > > Actually, I suspect Brown Eyes lives in that part of the world where > "good enough" is the deciding factor. What "good enough" is, is highly > dependant on the job at hand. A batch job, running every hour, that > can be restarted and recover on itself is "good enough", when it > restarts mid-batch twice a year. The control software for the > Curiosity sky crane is "good enough", when it never fails. > > Knowing the difference between those two situations, is what most > managers and customers I know of, spend a lot of time mulling > over. None of them are prepared to pay the NASA-price for the > low-priority batch job. > Thing is, I suspect it's not really about cost. I think there is a "public choice economics" problem underlying all this. you just don't really know how to do hi-rel. hi-availability stuff until you've done it. once you have, it doesn't appear to cost any more than ... "the old sloppy way." And as a career choice, I suspect "the old sloppy way" is economically rewarded. The "good" way is at least discouraged, somewhat - most of what I have seen in terms of tools and all in the last thirty years seem to be not about appealing to mature engineers but rather making the world safer for ... "newbs". >>> due to unrecoverable resource contentions that can only be >>> recoverred by restarting anyway. > >> If it can be recovered by restarting, then it obviously wasn't >> unrecoverable in the first place. > > Maybe it could be avoided. But not always, especially not if you have > to code against the physical reality. But even in the case where a > deqadlock theoretically could be prevented, the tradeoff between "good > enough" and "perfect in 10 man-years" comes into play. > I haven't seen a case where there was the remotest possibility of deadlock in years and years. I still read the story about Pathfinder and am absolutely dumbfounded. If there's even the remotest *possibility* of priority inversion, you are doing it wrong. >> Also, what "resource contentions" are causing your code to crash? >> Sounds like sloppy coding, where you just accept bugs rather than >> fix them, rather than some inevitable problem. > > I'd be happy if you tell me how to fix the systems I'm supposed to > interface with. I'm bound by that pseky "good enough", so I cannot do > much more than assume that the opposite side of the socket, actually > implements the protocol as described. When that assertion fails, the > inevitable result is more often than not something that can be > described by the onomapoeticon "Kaboom!" > The economics of defects seems to be incredibly poorly understood. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 15:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k20fm3$h0s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25756 |
On 02-Sep-12 13:40, Les Cargill wrote: > you just don't really know how to do hi-rel. hi-availability > stuff until you've done it. once you have, it doesn't > appear to cost any more than ... "the old sloppy way." That is quite true. A related lesson is that you can take a large system and scale it down, but you can't take a small system and scale it up. Things like high scalability, high availability, etc. need to be designed in from the start; they cannot be added later because they fundamentally change the design of the system. If done at the start, they don't add much to the cost--but if left out, you'll eventually have to scrap the entire design and start over. > The economics of defects seems to be incredibly poorly understood. As an industry, we seem to have a solid understanding of how much each call to the support department costs and how much the QA department costs overall, but nobody seems able to quantify how much it costs to be _known_ as an unreliable company that makes unreliable products, at least until the situation has gotten so bad that one starts losing market share--and few companies recover from that death spiral. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 16:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k20hc5$rml$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25760 |
Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 02-Sep-12 13:40, Les Cargill wrote: >> you just don't really know how to do hi-rel. hi-availability >> stuff until you've done it. once you have, it doesn't >> appear to cost any more than ... "the old sloppy way." > > That is quite true. > I guess my point is that *apparently*, exposure to this is rare, and therefore considered costly. > A related lesson is that you can take a large system and scale it down, > but you can't take a small system and scale it up. Things like high > scalability, high availability, etc. need to be designed in from the > start; they cannot be added later because they fundamentally change the > design of the system. If done at the start, they don't add much to the > cost--but if left out, you'll eventually have to scrap the entire design > and start over. > I hadn't considered scalability - W.R.T. software, that seems even *worse* than reliability and availability in terms of being properly ... considerable. Web tools seem particularly terrible at this, although I'd defer to someone with more experience than I have. I got quoted - after considerable pulling - that one really popular system had lambdas ( time per transaction ) on the order of 100Hz* - *at best*. Apparently, you just throw hardware at it... *it might have been *10*Hz, but that sounds outrageously slow. >> The economics of defects seems to be incredibly poorly understood. > > As an industry, we seem to have a solid understanding of how much each > call to the support department costs and how much the QA department > costs overall, I am really quite unsure of that. The source of bias here is "well, the present budget is <x>, so let's keep doing that" until you *can't* do that any more, and then guess where cuts come from? > but nobody seems able to quantify how much it costs to be > _known_ as an unreliable company that makes unreliable products, at > least until the situation has gotten so bad that one starts losing > market share--and few companies recover from that death spiral. > Men plan, Schumpeter laughs. Good for him; I really don't want to drive a Tucker.... The problem then is - now it's a job for the rhetoricians, not the engineers. And they're *really* expensive and can actually *do* the Jedi Mind Trick... > S > -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 17:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k20kv5$i90$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25764 |
On 02-Sep-12 16:05, Les Cargill wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 02-Sep-12 13:40, Les Cargill wrote: >>> you just don't really know how to do hi-rel. hi-availability >>> stuff until you've done it. once you have, it doesn't >>> appear to cost any more than ... "the old sloppy way." >> >> That is quite true. > > I guess my point is that *apparently*, exposure to this is rare, > and therefore considered costly. It's considered costly because it's rarely designed in from the start, so people look at the cost of scrapping their design and starting over, rather than the (smaller total) cost of doing it right the first time. It's also considered costly because there aren't that many people who know how to do it right the first time, and simple market economics tells us that such people will therefore be more costly to employ. In reality, though, that is less costly than doing it wrong the first time. Also, many companies are started by people who have dreams of making it big but are utterly unprepared for what it means to actually have that happen. There was a UPS commercial several years ago that showed a few people in an office watching their sales ticker go live and cheering when it rolled past a hundred orders--and then aghast when it soon rolled past a hundred _thousand_ orders. For many startups, that isn't too far off the mark--and it shows. Few survive that level of success, usually by being bought by a larger company that knows how to handle it. >> A related lesson is that you can take a large system and scale it down, >> but you can't take a small system and scale it up. Things like high >> scalability, high availability, etc. need to be designed in from the >> start; they cannot be added later because they fundamentally change the >> design of the system. If done at the start, they don't add much to the >> cost--but if left out, you'll eventually have to scrap the entire design >> and start over. > > I hadn't considered scalability - W.R.T. software, that seems even > *worse* than reliability and availability in terms of being > properly ... considerable. Scalability, reliability and availability of software are all closely related, and the most common solution (clustering) addresses all three. Basically, you cannot assume one of any functional unit; you must assume there are N+1 of each unit, up to N of which are currently not available (either due to being down or due to being overloaded), where N can be anywhere from 0 (for small systems) to dozens or even hundreds (for large systems). That is not something you can retrofit; it is a fundamental change in the way you design systems. (For extra credit, allow each unit within each N+1 group to be ahead or behind one version of software, which enables on-line upgrades.) This is a radically different approach from what someone here described as the NASA model, where there is exactly one of everything that has to have perfectly reliability and infinite capacity because if any unit ever fails or gets overloaded, the system crashes--and people die. >>> The economics of defects seems to be incredibly poorly understood. >> >> As an industry, we seem to have a solid understanding of how much each >> call to the support department costs and how much the QA department >> costs overall, > > I am really quite unsure of that. The source of bias here is "well, > the present budget is <x>, so let's keep doing that" until you *can't* > do that any more, and then guess where cuts come from? I could tell you, to the penny, exactly how much it costs my employer for each call to our support line. I could also tell you, to the penny, exactly how much our QA department costs. I could even tell you, to the penny, how much it costs to fix all the bugs that QA finds. What I _can't_ tell you, even to within several orders of magnitude, is how much it will cost us to _not find_ a bug or how much it will cost us to _not fix_ said bug. That's why the "expense" of finding and fixing bugs is always a target for cuts: the available statistics only show half of the story. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 17:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k20lri$n8n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25773 |
Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 02-Sep-12 16:05, Les Cargill wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> On 02-Sep-12 13:40, Les Cargill wrote: >>>> you just don't really know how to do hi-rel. hi-availability >>>> stuff until you've done it. once you have, it doesn't >>>> appear to cost any more than ... "the old sloppy way." >>> >>> That is quite true. >> >> I guess my point is that *apparently*, exposure to this is rare, >> and therefore considered costly. > > It's considered costly because it's rarely designed in from the start, > so people look at the cost of scrapping their design and starting over, > rather than the (smaller total) cost of doing it right the first time. > I think scrapping a prototype is both easier and cheaper, but it apparently offends people's sensibilities. > It's also considered costly because there aren't that many people who > know how to do it right the first time, and simple market economics > tells us that such people will therefore be more costly to employ. In > reality, though, that is less costly than doing it wrong the first time. > it also means there's a market bias against *learning* to do it right the first time. That's unfortunate. > Also, many companies are started by people who have dreams of making it > big but are utterly unprepared for what it means to actually have that > happen. You got that right. That's a huge effect. > There was a UPS commercial several years ago that showed a few > people in an office watching their sales ticker go live and cheering > when it rolled past a hundred orders--and then aghast when it soon > rolled past a hundred _thousand_ orders. For many startups, that isn't > too far off the mark--and it shows. Few survive that level of success, > usually by being bought by a larger company that knows how to handle it. > Yep. >>> A related lesson is that you can take a large system and scale it down, >>> but you can't take a small system and scale it up. Things like high >>> scalability, high availability, etc. need to be designed in from the >>> start; they cannot be added later because they fundamentally change the >>> design of the system. If done at the start, they don't add much to the >>> cost--but if left out, you'll eventually have to scrap the entire design >>> and start over. >> >> I hadn't considered scalability - W.R.T. software, that seems even >> *worse* than reliability and availability in terms of being >> properly ... considerable. > > Scalability, reliability and availability of software are all closely > related, and the most common solution (clustering) addresses all three. > True. > Basically, you cannot assume one of any functional unit; you must assume > there are N+1 of each unit, up to N of which are currently not available > (either due to being down or due to being overloaded), where N can be > anywhere from 0 (for small systems) to dozens or even hundreds (for > large systems). That is not something you can retrofit; it is a > fundamental change in the way you design systems. > Yes, it is. Although I was ( erroneously ) thinking "reliability" not in the redundant or hot-backup sense - more in the "don't crash" sense. > (For extra credit, allow each unit within each N+1 group to be ahead or > behind one version of software, which enables on-line upgrades.) > > This is a radically different approach from what someone here described > as the NASA model, where there is exactly one of everything that has to > have perfectly reliability and infinite capacity because if any unit > ever fails or gets overloaded, the system crashes--and people die. > *Some* NASA stuff uses "voting" type redundancy, as do other aviation electronics. >>>> The economics of defects seems to be incredibly poorly understood. >>> >>> As an industry, we seem to have a solid understanding of how much each >>> call to the support department costs and how much the QA department >>> costs overall, >> >> I am really quite unsure of that. The source of bias here is "well, >> the present budget is <x>, so let's keep doing that" until you *can't* >> do that any more, and then guess where cuts come from? > > I could tell you, to the penny, exactly how much it costs my employer > for each call to our support line. I could also tell you, to the penny, > exactly how much our QA department costs. I could even tell you, to the > penny, how much it costs to fix all the bugs that QA finds. > nobody has a knife that sharp :) > What I _can't_ tell you, even to within several orders of magnitude, is > how much it will cost us to _not find_ a bug or how much it will cost us > to _not fix_ said bug. > Ah, right. > That's why the "expense" of finding and fixing bugs is always a target > for cuts: the available statistics only show half of the story. > Indeed; the dreaded "unknown unknown." > S > -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 21:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k213v7$v15$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25776 |
On 02-Sep-12 17:21, Les Cargill wrote: > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 02-Sep-12 16:05, Les Cargill wrote: >>> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>> On 02-Sep-12 13:40, Les Cargill wrote: >>>>> you just don't really know how to do hi-rel. hi-availability >>>>> stuff until you've done it. once you have, it doesn't >>>>> appear to cost any more than ... "the old sloppy way." >>>> >>>> That is quite true. >>> >>> I guess my point is that *apparently*, exposure to this is rare, >>> and therefore considered costly. >> >> It's considered costly because it's rarely designed in from the start, >> so people look at the cost of scrapping their design and starting over, >> rather than the (smaller total) cost of doing it right the first time. > > I think scrapping a prototype is both easier and cheaper, but it > apparently offends people's sensibilities. What's a prototype? Do you mean the code that Marketing/Sales shipped as version 1.0 before you figured out that it would never work? And that management is now insisting you fix--and add features to--rather than start over from scratch? >> Basically, you cannot assume one of any functional unit; you must assume >> there are N+1 of each unit, up to N of which are currently not available >> (either due to being down or due to being overloaded), where N can be >> anywhere from 0 (for small systems) to dozens or even hundreds (for >> large systems). That is not something you can retrofit; it is a >> fundamental change in the way you design systems. > > Yes, it is. Although I was ( erroneously ) thinking "reliability" > not in the redundant or hot-backup sense - more in the "don't crash" > sense. Well, your primary focus moves from the reliability of the entire system rather than of individual components, but you still want the individual components to be reliable as well. >> This is a radically different approach from what someone here described >> as the NASA model, where there is exactly one of everything that has to >> have perfectly reliability and infinite capacity because if any unit >> ever fails or gets overloaded, the system crashes--and people die. > > *Some* NASA stuff uses "voting" type redundancy, as do other aviation > electronics. I've read that NASA uses three-way voting between two systems from vendor A and one system from vendor B. That's great for handling hardware faults or a bug in vendor B's software, but a bug in vendor A's software can outvote vendor B's correct software. Then again, the US political system has soured me on voting in general. >> I could tell you, to the penny, exactly how much it costs my employer >> for each call to our support line. I could also tell you, to the penny, >> exactly how much our QA department costs. I could even tell you, to the >> penny, how much it costs to fix all the bugs that QA finds. > > nobody has a knife that sharp :) The precision probably exceeds the accuracy, but our accountants at least _think_ their knives are that sharp. :) S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 00:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k20mak$e0p$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25773 |
Le 03/09/12 00:01, Stephen Sprunk a écrit : > This is a radically different approach from what someone here described > as the NASA model, where there is exactly one of everything that has to > have perfectly reliability and infinite capacity because if any unit > ever fails or gets overloaded, the system crashes--and people die. This is an unwarranted insult to NASA people, that have to be able to survive and do outstanding work in an ever decreasing budget. The systems on Mars, for instance, have reliably worked since years: Opportunity rover is running its real time OS since 8 years already, and the twin rover Spirit, had a few startup problems but worked flawlessly for many years after that initial problem. NASA CAN'T replicate everything since every gram sent to Mars or to Jupiter costs a fortune. You can't send several computers, several backup systems, etc. You are constrained by the laws of gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 18:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k20og5$5nt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25777 |
jacob navia wrote: > Le 03/09/12 00:01, Stephen Sprunk a écrit : >> This is a radically different approach from what someone here described >> as the NASA model, where there is exactly one of everything that has to >> have perfectly reliability and infinite capacity because if any unit >> ever fails or gets overloaded, the system crashes--and people die. > > This is an unwarranted insult to NASA people, that have to be able to > survive and do outstanding work in an ever decreasing budget. A declining budget is Nature's way of telling you to work somewhere else. > The > systems on Mars, for instance, have reliably worked since years: > Opportunity rover is running its real time OS since 8 years already, and > the twin rover Spirit, had a few startup problems but worked flawlessly > for many years after that initial problem. > > NASA CAN'T replicate everything since every gram sent to Mars or to > Jupiter costs a fortune. You can't send several computers, several > backup systems, etc. You are constrained by the laws of gravity. > > The problem with NASA is the PR end of it. That's Tom Wolfe's thesis from "The Right Stuff" and it's still true. Because NASA's mission has been made mythic, the failures resonate as mythic, too. Hopefully, the good people there know that going in, or figure it out. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 11:07 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <aai74qF3lnU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25782 |
On 09/ 3/12 11:06 AM, Les Cargill wrote: > jacob navia wrote: >> Le 03/09/12 00:01, Stephen Sprunk a écrit : >>> This is a radically different approach from what someone here described >>> as the NASA model, where there is exactly one of everything that has to >>> have perfectly reliability and infinite capacity because if any unit >>> ever fails or gets overloaded, the system crashes--and people die. >> >> This is an unwarranted insult to NASA people, that have to be able to >> survive and do outstanding work in an ever decreasing budget. > > A declining budget is Nature's way of telling you to work somewhere > else. Mars? > -- > Les Cargill Your sig is missing the trailing space after the "--". -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 18:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k20q7a$j64$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25783 |
Ian Collins wrote: > On 09/ 3/12 11:06 AM, Les Cargill wrote: >> jacob navia wrote: >>> Le 03/09/12 00:01, Stephen Sprunk a écrit : >>>> This is a radically different approach from what someone here described >>>> as the NASA model, where there is exactly one of everything that has to >>>> have perfectly reliability and infinite capacity because if any unit >>>> ever fails or gets overloaded, the system crashes--and people die. >>> >>> This is an unwarranted insult to NASA people, that have to be able to >>> survive and do outstanding work in an ever decreasing budget. >> >> A declining budget is Nature's way of telling you to work somewhere >> else. > > Mars? > Yep. Mars. >> -- >> Les Cargill > > Your sig is missing the trailing space after the "--". > Ah - thanks. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 20:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k20u5k$5vr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25782 |
On 09/02/2012 07:06 PM, Les Cargill wrote: > jacob navia wrote: ... >> This is an unwarranted insult to NASA people, that have to be able to >> survive and do outstanding work in an ever decreasing budget. > > A declining budget is Nature's way of telling you to work somewhere > else. Sending sensors into space to look back at Earth should continue to be well-funded, even if budgets decline for those looking outward. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 20:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k20ves$bms$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25777 |
On 02-Sep-12 17:24, jacob navia wrote: > Le 03/09/12 00:01, Stephen Sprunk a écrit : >> This is a radically different approach from what someone here described >> as the NASA model, where there is exactly one of everything that has to >> have perfectly reliability and infinite capacity because if any unit >> ever fails or gets overloaded, the system crashes--and people die. > > This is an unwarranted insult to NASA people, It is not an insult at all, much less an unwarranted one. It is a recognition that NASA's mission is unique, so perhaps their methodology isn't automatically the best choice for everyone else. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 11:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k220if$2n1$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25756 |
Les Cargill wrote: > The economics of defects seems to be incredibly poorly understood. Considering the number of people who profit from this, along with how much profit can be made from defective software, maybe it's actually understood very well. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 11:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k22mts$kb8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25818 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > Les Cargill wrote: > >> The economics of defects seems to be incredibly poorly understood. > > Considering the number of people who profit from this, along with how much > profit can be made from defective software, maybe it's actually understood > very well. > > > Rui Maciel > And then there's that.... :) -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-31 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnoblqubyf.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25654 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 31-Aug-12 06:40, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
>> In article <k1q766$971$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> If your code is so bad and your understanding of the issue is so
>>> questionable that they lead you to accept frequent crashes as a
>>> natural occurrence and, instead of investing your time avoiding
>>> those crashes by fixing your bugs and avoiding writing them in,
>>> you opt to duct tape together a CPR system for your programs then
>>> it leads me to believe that you are in no position to comment on
>>> issues such as coding best practices, let alone how to write safe
>>> code.
>>
>> I find it acceptable to crash a couple times a year
>
> You may, but many/most of us, our employers and our customers do not.
Let me suggest another way of looking at it.
If you have a program that crashes a couple of times a year, for
whatever reason, of course ideally you'd want to fix the bug that
causes the crash.
But unless you have infinite resources, fixing that crash might not
be your highest priority, particularly if crashing and automatically
restarting doesn't cause any serious problems to your users.
(You might even consider preemptively killing and restarting
the program once a month or so, at a time of your choosing that
minimizes inconvenience.)
In practice twice-yearly crash is going to be one of a number of
reported bugs, and you have to pick and choose which bugs you're
going to spend time on.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-01 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k1tl3i$2tf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25663 |
On 31-Aug-12 13:56, Keith Thompson wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> On 31-Aug-12 06:40, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote: >>> I find it acceptable to crash a couple times a year >> >> You may, but many/most of us, our employers and our customers do not. > > Let me suggest another way of looking at it. > > If you have a program that crashes a couple of times a year, for > whatever reason, of course ideally you'd want to fix the bug that > causes the crash. > > But unless you have infinite resources, fixing that crash might not > be your highest priority, particularly if crashing and automatically > restarting doesn't cause any serious problems to your users. > (You might even consider preemptively killing and restarting > the program once a month or so, at a time of your choosing that > minimizes inconvenience.) > > In practice twice-yearly crash is going to be one of a number of > reported bugs, and you have to pick and choose which bugs you're > going to spend time on. Of course, but saying that I don't currently have the resources to diagnose and fix a particular bug is an entirely different thing than saying I find that bug "acceptable". I'm also well aware that a bug that causes a crash twice a year is difficult to reproduce, which makes it difficult to diagnose and even more difficult to prove that the proposed fix actually worked. Such bugs often languish for years because nobody has figured out how to reproduce them--but that still doesn't mean we find them "acceptable". S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-01 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr4qlh77z.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25705 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 31-Aug-12 13:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> In practice [a] twice-yearly crash is going to be one of a number of
>> reported bugs, and you have to pick and choose which bugs you're
>> going to spend time on.
>
> Of course, but saying that I don't currently have the resources to
> diagnose and fix a particular bug is an entirely different thing than
> saying I find that bug "acceptable".
>
> I'm also well aware that a bug that causes a crash twice a year is
> difficult to reproduce, which makes it difficult to diagnose and even
> more difficult to prove that the proposed fix actually worked. Such
> bugs often languish for years because nobody has figured out how to
> reproduce them--but that still doesn't mean we find them "acceptable".
I understand what you're saying, but it depends on just what you
mean by the word "acceptable". One could argue that if you leave
the bug unfixed and continue to use the buggy system, then you've
"accepted" it.
But that's just a quibble about the meaning of a mostly irrelevant word.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-01 22:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1uoc0$pf7$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25707 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> On 31-Aug-12 13:56, Keith Thompson wrote: > [...] >>> In practice [a] twice-yearly crash is going to be one of a number of >>> reported bugs, and you have to pick and choose which bugs you're >>> going to spend time on. >> >> Of course, but saying that I don't currently have the resources to >> diagnose and fix a particular bug is an entirely different thing than >> saying I find that bug "acceptable". >> >> I'm also well aware that a bug that causes a crash twice a year is >> difficult to reproduce, which makes it difficult to diagnose and even >> more difficult to prove that the proposed fix actually worked. Such >> bugs often languish for years because nobody has figured out how to >> reproduce them--but that still doesn't mean we find them >> "acceptable". > > I understand what you're saying, but it depends on just what you > mean by the word "acceptable". One could argue that if you leave > the bug unfixed and continue to use the buggy system, then you've > "accepted" it. > > But that's just a quibble about the meaning of a mostly irrelevant > word. Are you "leading" this circle-jerk, "coach"? Hmm? Keith Sandustoff?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 12:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk3wcgqln.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25726 |
"Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> writes:
[...]
> Are you "leading" this circle-jerk, "coach"? Hmm? Keith Sandustoff?
And the sad thing is, he probably thinks he's clever.
*plonk*
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web