home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!uunet!not-for-mail
- From: mike@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
- Subject: Re: Report on POSIX.2: Shell and Utilities
- Date: 14 Sep 1992 16:24:09 -0700
- Organization: CS Dept, University of Oregon
- Lines: 28
- Sender: sef@ftp.UU.NET
- Approved: sef@ftp.uucp (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan)
- Message-ID: <1936upINNrot@ftp.UU.NET>
- References: <18lqglINN992@ftp.UU.NET> <18u2i5INNo7e@ftp.UU.NET> <190k6vINN5g9@ftp.UU.NET> <192n6aINNlt2@ftp.UU.NET>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net
- X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
-
- Submitted-by: mike@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel)
-
- In article <192n6aINNlt2@ftp.UU.NET> preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece) writes:
- >And if
- >you're a responsible engineer, you have to resist standardizing bad
- >practice just because it is existing practice.
-
- The problem is that often one person's bad practice is another's holy
- grail. Certainly, we can all agree that some things are bad practice.
- But there are also many more things that lots of people still don't
- agree on. For example, I happen to think that Berkeley's socket
- interface is a terrible way to do networks. I know lots of people who
- agree with me. But I also know lots of people who disagree, often
- quite vehemently.
-
- So where do you draw the line between resisting the standardization
- of bad practice, and gratuitously standardizing some committee member's
- notion of the One True Way (existing implementations be damned)?
-
- Existing systems all have their flaws, but at least we know what they
- are. Any new invention, by a standardization commitee or anyone else,
- will inevitably include new flaws. I feel the scope of standards
- should be restricted to what's well-understood. Introducing new flaws
- that are not well understood to a standard that is to be carved in
- stone is not a Good Idea.
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 29, Number 36
-