Re: xmalloc string functions

Randy Howard wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:01:40 -0600, Yevgen Muntyan wrote
(in article <oAbnj.6924$fs4.3455@trnddc02>):

Randy Howard wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:42:05 -0600, Yevgen Muntyan wrote
(in article <1ibnj.6922$fs4.1427@trnddc02>):

Ian Collins wrote:
Randy Howard wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 09:49:42 -0600, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
One wonders how many applications they've screwed over with that bit of asinine idiocy.
Sure. That's why seeing an app crash on a linux box is "no big surprise" anymore. It's also one of the reasons I don't run Linux anymore except when I absolutely have to. It's not the kernel's fault, but it is a problem with the normal way the platform is deployed.

<OT>Unlike some other platforms, Linux and UNIX platforms in general
offer the user a choice of desktop environments. One popular
alternative is written in TOL, which is better equipped to manage
dynamic memory</OT>
You mean those application will abort in the unexpected exception
handler instead of inside g_malloc()? Sure, that's certainly better.
Is there some reason you have been appointed as glib's public defender?
I don't like smart arses who know nothing except how to use
word "idiot" and its derivatives.

When you refer to someone that holds a different opinion than you do as a "smart arse who knows nothing", how is that any better than calling someone an "idiot"? I'm curious how you arrived at this distinction, as well as how you determined what they don't know from afar.

You have it quoted. If you mean that one may talk "idiocy"
but I shouldn't refer to him as "smart arse" (since as
a glib user I conclude from his words that I am an idiot
who screws applications over), then I will disagree.


Not that glib needs to be
defended of course, since it's something that actually works
in real world, not like those smarties' smart ideas.

That people have written and deployed applications with glib doesn't mean that its design is good, or bad on its own. All it means is somebody typed 'make' and hit the enter key and out popped a binary which people use.

Yep. A binary which does what it intends to do, "works".

My original intention really was just to point out that
Malcolm ideas are not something unusual or broken by definition.

What this amounts to is one of those so-called "religious" disputes about which programmers love to argue, yet nobody every gets "converted". In a word, pointless. Well, there is an outside chance that somebody that hasn't formed an opinion yet might learn something from the debate that would help them come to a conclusion. However,
> calling each other "idiot", or "smart arses" doesn't do much to help
> that process along.


Sorry, you mean that that someone could learn something from
this:

"""
That's why seeing an app crash on a linux box is "no big surprise"
anymore. It's also one of the reasons I don't run Linux anymore
except when I absolutely have to
"""

or

"""
One wonders how many applications they've screwed over with that
bit of asinine idiocy.
"""

but he won't be able to because of my "smart arse"? I apologize
for my rude (or whatever you don't like here) language then.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: xmalloc string functions
    ... It's also one of the reasons I don't run Linux anymore except when I absolutely have to. ... But then I read the replies, and replied myself, and I should ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: xmalloc string functions
    ... It's also one of the reasons I don't run Linux ... anymore except when I absolutely have to. ... It's not the kernel's fault, ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: xmalloc string functions
    ... That's why seeing an app crash on a linux box is "no big surprise" anymore. ... It's also one of the reasons I don't run Linux anymore except when I absolutely have to. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Were are POP3 and IMAP in core 4?
    ... Email, PHP, and Ilohamail are the two reasons I use Linux. ... Why are they not included anymore? ... for production servers. ...
    (Fedora)
  • I think you are wrong. (Was Re: OT: Told You So )
    ... which compares the security features of MS-Windows and Linux side by side. ... multiuser, multitasking operating system. ... The technical reasons for the better security follow from these cultural ...
    (comp.os.linux)