Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: What constitutes a good OS?
Message-ID: <5395@auspex.auspex.com>
Date: 20 Jan 91 22:09:56 GMT
References: <41772@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <5293@auspex.auspex.com> <1991Jan17.114801@hermes.ladc.bull.com>
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 24

>Actually, it's my belief (being a file management sort of guy) that "lines" and
>"records" are one and the same thing.

Unfortunately, Darren doesn't; he had specific notions in mind of what a
"record" was that included more than just what a "line" is - i.e., he
was thinking of "records" as the components of a randomly-accessible and
randomly-updatable file.

>Mostly because if I add a single line early in the file, it throws off the
>entire line numbering of the listing I'm holding in my hand.  The more lines I
>add, the worse the problem.  Alternatively, if the compiler listed the
>"imbedded line numbers," it wouldn't necessarily throw things off; my listing
>would still be useful.  This has annoyed me many times, particularly since in
>my CP6 (successor to CP-V, btw) work,

Hmm.  Methinks I'm starting to see more evidence that the Baby Duck
Syndrome is showing up here on the anti-UNIX side, as well as on the
pro-UNIX side.  Perhaps UNIX people tend not to hold line-numbered
listings in their hand, have gotten used to the idea of doing things
differently, and don't give a fig about line numbering, while CP-V/CP6
people use line-numbered listings frequently and find the notion of a
system that *doesn't* use line numbers heavily to be unpleasant.  I know
*I* sure don't miss big printed listings, much less big *line-numbered*
printed listings....