Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: ASyncRun() doesn't work with pipe:xxx! Message-ID: <6553@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 10 Sep 90 05:04:27 GMT References: <13920086@hpfelg.HP.COM> <2156@trlluna.trl.oz> <6516@sugar.hackercorp.com> <57200@microsoft.UUCP> <6528@sugar.hackercorp <20573.26e8ef86@psuecl.bitnet> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 26 In article <20573.26e8ef86@psuecl.bitnet> d6b@psuecl.bitnet writes: > In article <6528@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > 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. A single counterexample proves nothing. Let's consider the device drivers. Even in 2.0 there are (reportedly) bugs in trackdisk.device. What in the original O/S was neither (a) in Assembly, nor (b) ported from Tripos? > > 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? (a) They're not as broken (in some cases by definition, since the bugs were things like incompatibilities). (b) There wasn't an alternative. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .