Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:43:17 -0700 (PDT) From: David Brownlee <abs@anim.dreamworks.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tech-userlevel@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9907132226130.1046-100000@cynic.anim.dreamworks.com> In-Reply-To: <199907132156.OAA81180@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Jason, I am using real life situations to demonstrate my point. You are
> perfectly welcome to use your own REAL-LIFE situations to demonstrate
> yours. It is the real-life application that matters, not a worst-case
> nightmare theory. No engineer designs systems based on nightmare
> theories.
Sorry - had to reply to this. I have an Aero-engineer friend who
took some exception to that last sentence. They're like that :)
Back on topic:
Obviously you devote the most time to handling the most common
and serious failure modes, but if someone else if willing to
put in the work to handle nightmare cases, should you ignore or
discard that work?
Put more accurately - if someone wants to provide a different rope
to permit people to write in a different defensive style, and it
does not in any way impact your use of the system: More power to them.
David/absolute
-=- Sue me, screw me, walk right through me -=-
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.05.9907132226130.1046-100000>