Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!bader+
From: bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Lattice C 5.04 bug
Message-ID: <cZV0fcW00UkaMGMmR0@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 89 20:15:36 GMT
References: <828@wet.UUCP>,
	<12147@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Organization: Information Technology Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 29
In-Reply-To: <12147@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>

gregg@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (gregg.g.wonderly) writes:
> From article <828@wet.UUCP>, by mcw@wet.UUCP (Martin Warnett):
> > There appears to be a bug in the chdir() function in Lattice C 5.04.
> > ...
> Which brings me to my favorite gripe.  Why do people insist on implementing
> compatibility libraries from the lowest level?  It seems really rediculous
> to try and invent new bugs in software.  My favorite is the sleep()
> implementation in C-Kermit.  Instead of 
> 
> sleep(n)
>         unsigned n;
> {
>         Delay (60*n);
> }
> 
> the code was written with huge amounts of StartIO/WaitIO and other such
> nonsense.
> ...
> Please folks use the highest level of interface, not the lowest, even though
> you know how to do it.  I look much more highly on those that do it the
> easiest way rather than the "trickest" way.  Remember, the code has to
> work right before being faster makes a difference...

I was under the impression that "Delay" was a pretty nasty thing to use, that
it stopped the whole system dead while it was delaying or something.
Whatever the reason, I remember seeing posts to the effect of "Don't use
Delay."  Anyone remember why?

-Miles