[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Design Decisions and Hurd/L4 work (was: Re: Improving Hurd)

From: Jan Atle Ramsli
Subject: Re: Design Decisions and Hurd/L4 work (was: Re: Improving Hurd)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:41:19 +0200

Philip Dodd wrote:
> > Some more: Now we understand exchother perfectly.
> > I _do_ need to read at least two books in order to even contemplate
> > doing something useful - I can not, not under any circumstances, program
> > on something I do not 100% (not 99.99%!) understand.
> > And now I hear that Hurd is based on concepts that have 10 years advance
> > on me in matters of basic computer science.
> >
> > If necessary, I will retake a course in Software Enginneering ... but I
> > need to understand the design priciples, and the scientific philosophy
> > behind them.
> I think it was Aristotle who said, "What we have to learn to do, we learn by
> doing."
The problem is that someone just popped out and said "The ADT is not
longer relevant, it died 10 years ago".
To me that is as if someone said "Hey, do you know that they moved Oslo
to Sweden?"
I can not just take someone's word for it, no matter who that someone

I need to go and see for my self, and in the case of the ADT, my old
question just became relevant, just as I thought I had the answered:

How can I get myself into a position where I will be able to contribute?
That is: I have been told that some problems can not be solved with the
concept of an ADT.
I need to know: What are they. It takes only one example to convince me.

Also, I need to: When it died, what took its place?

All the other anwers I got confirmed my belief that in fact, "my"
principles of SE were sort of "taking over" - now, with one blow, I have
been told that in fact, the were valid at the time of the Hurd's
inception, but have now been abandoned.

Back to school for me ....


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]