Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!super!rminnich From: rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: IEEE libraries Keywords: IEEE, GURU, Death, Horror, AINU (Amiga Is Not Unix) Message-ID: <734@super.ORG> Date: 15 Sep 88 11:04:25 GMT References: <1356@percival.UUCP> <358@boing.UUCP> <1570@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <7096@well.UUCP> <731@super.ORG> Sender: uucp@super.ORG Reply-To: rminnich@metropolis.UUCP (Ronald G Minnich) Distribution: na Organization: Supercomputing Research Center, Lanham, MD Lines: 19 In article kevin@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kevin Clague) writes: >I had this multiple code bug in my code for a year and didn't even >know it. Once I found it, it took me a few days to shoot. Looking back, >I would prefer to have had a recoverable GURU rather than no report at Agreed that for doing a library the guru is the good thing. I maintain that guru's should be avoided for non-computer types. Well, ok, suppose we have a switch in the OS that determines whether you get the 'carry on' behavior or you get the GURU. Sort of an equivalent to loadwb -debug. Default is to get 'carry on', so that potential customers are not lost by the guru. I have seen people get really freaked out even by the 'recoverable alert' type messages ("my pc never did that!"). But, if you were a developer type yourself, you run the setguru program or something, and now you get a guru. Or is that too messy too? I don't know, i just know that 1) Perfection is impossible, and 2) GURUs really turn people off. Customer-type people, i mean. people who might buy amigas and drive unit costs down. ron