Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!math.ufl.edu!shadrach.math.ufl.edu!bb From: bb@math.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Laziness Message-ID: Date: 2 May 91 00:04:42 GMT References: <1991May1.142136.19889@sinix.UUCP> Sender: news@math.ufl.edu Organization: University of Florida Department of Mathematics Lines: 35 In-Reply-To: dhg@sinix.UUCP's message of 1 May 91 14:21:36 GMT In article <1991May1.142136.19889@sinix.UUCP> dhg@sinix.UUCP (David Griffith) writes: > and she commented "Yes but it's all a bit shallow isn't it?". At first > I brushed this remark aside, but perhaps she has a point. .... And > there's a limit to the functional changes you can make to a given > binary application. Yeah, but it beats the heck out of not being able to make changes at all. > This is a real pity. It would be a great boost to the idea of object > orientated programming on the NeXT if the binary executables somehow > still contained relocation information thus allowing you to add new > functionality. Almost as good as source code! Why re-implement source code? If you want to do things that need source code, get source code. Source allows you the ultimate freedom in reusability. > But then maybe application developers don't like the idea of their > applications being ripped apart like some old car for spare parts... I would personally be flattered if someone thought some code of mine was good enough to use in one of their own apps. I understand (but do not agree with) commercial developers who would rather not see a competitor make a 10% improvement to one of their products by starting with 90% of the developers' code. -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu