Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit

[Charles Duffy]

On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 02:58, Thomas Zander wrote:
> Well; time for the stab that a higher programming language using exceptions 
> etc you would not have been in this state in the first place.

It's not such a bad state. In short, these "problems" are only problems
if you presume that one of your design goals is to act as a long-running
process.

The "good structuring" you speak of is an unnecessary cost if one
presumes a single-process-per-command design -- which, in the UNIX
world, is a pretty common practice; I'd almost go as far as to call it a
*best* practice in cases where there's no significant design constraint
which gives a compelling reason to do otherwise.

My impression is that there's a substantial misalignment between your
own goals for arch and Tom's goals for arch -- perhaps even between your
own goals and those held by general consensus here. Just because a
design is in use that doesn't meet your goals doesn't mean that design
is immature, stupid or wrong -- heck, if software which (from a end-user
perspective) is stable and reliable can be written without your goals in
mind, perhaps they're not even such important elements of good design to
begin with.