Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!psuecl!d6b
From: d6b@psuecl.bitnet
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: ASyncRun() doesn't work with pipe:xxx!
Message-ID: <20573.26e8ef86@psuecl.bitnet>
Date: 8 Sep 90 17:17:58 GMT
References: <13920086@hpfelg.HP.COM> <2156@trlluna.trl.oz> <6516@sugar.hackercorp.com> <57200@microsoft.UUCP> <6528@sugar.hackercorp
Lines: 26

.com>
Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Pennsylvania State University
Lines: 23

In article <6528@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
> Plus, it's in assembly. I would rather put up with a bit of code bloat and
> minimise the amount of assembly used in the system. Yes, I'd rather BCPL to
> assembly. Why? Because that's where most of the bugs are.

Wrong. Exec, the only major part of the OS to be written completely in
assembly (aside from the device drivers) has proven to be the most bug-free,
by far.

> Finally, ARP doesn't (or didn't, I haven't looked at the last couple of
> releases) come with source. So I can't fix it.

How many of Commodore's OS releases came with source? How many commercial
products come with source? Of course they *should* come with source, but
they don't. This isn't a peculiar feature of ARP. Actually, I have yet
to hear an argument for not including (for an added charge, of course)
source code with a product that makes any sense. IMHO they are just
throwing away money, because a lot of people would be willing to pay
twice the usual price (perhaps more) to get the source code too.

-- Dan Babcock