Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!liuida!aste16!felkl From: felkl@aste16.Berkeley.EDU (Feliks Kluzniak) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Can I talk about Parlog here? Message-ID: <1990Nov26.145012.19720@ida.liu.se> Date: 26 Nov 90 14:50:12 GMT References: <2540@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> <1990Nov22.174222.8614@ida.liu.se> Sender: news@ida.liu.se (News Subsystem) Reply-To: felkl@aste16.Berkeley.EDU (Feliks Kluzniak) Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden Lines: 18 In article , ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: |> given the above statement, i find it hard to imagine that mister |> kuzniak has _ever_ worked on a commercial grade software product. it |> may be that he has been involved in some garage scale products, but |> even this seems unlikely.... Well, I need not react to the tone of this posting. However, Ted Dunning completely missed the point. I am NOT saying that there is no difference between the work involved in writing commercial software and that involved in writing software for more limited purposes. What I am saying is that the difference is no excuse for sloppiness. You may not want to spend time on extensive user manuals and menus, but if your program bombs, then you just haven't done your job properly. "It's only research software" is often accepted as an excuse, and I find it ridiculous. -- F.K.