Re: xmalloc string functions

[snips]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:33:59 -0800, ymuntyan wrote:

The thread is mostly dedicated to:

One basic proposition: that the only reason not to do proper allocation
failure checking is laziness, and this is an insufficient excuse.

Very small part of it describes what actually is worse if you use things
like g_malloc (well, if you don't count Kelsey, he'll tell you a lot
about how things are totally bad, using a Gtk newsreader to post that).

And thus one based on glib. Hmm, exactly how much of *anything* am I
likely to lose if the reader dies? I don't lose my "last read" pointers,
I don't lose headers, or bodies, or subscriptions, in fact, the only
thing I *might* lose is the text of a news post being composed, which is
almost certainly _not_ going to be a matter of hours' worth of work, or
of any particular monetary value.

The logic of even mentioning it isn't clear, other than perhaps to
demonstrate you simply do not even begin to understand the issues.

application should behave, that is). But what's the big problem here?
You say that application should get out of its skin trying to show up a
dialog saying it's going to go down before going down, and it's a
critical feature for you. Well, too bad for you, most desktop
application are of unacceptable quality for you.

Desktop applications are bad enough, but - from what at least one person
here has suggested - there are servers which also use the same
"allocation failure means death" model, and that involves a whole new
level of badness.

.