Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!mcf!fmeed1!wehr
From: wehr@fmeed1.UUCP (Bruce Wehr)
Newsgroups: hug.general,comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: More HP-UX 6.5 puzzlements (long)
Message-ID: <3390@fmeed1.UUCP>
Date: 22 May 89 20:17:54 GMT
References: <3344@fmeed1.UUCP> <3240090@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Organization: Ford Electronics Division, Dearborn MI
Lines: 32

In article <3240090@hpfcdc.HP.COM>, rer@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Rob Robason) writes:
> I can sympathize with your feelings if your job is not primarily to
> develop software, it would be nice if these things were more intuitive.

Software development *is* my primary job. System administration is not.

>    [...]   But what you describe
> is generally an unsafe software development practice.  [...]
> There are literally thousands of cases where it is unsafe to rely on
> anything other than the documented behavior of calls and commands in
> writing applications.

The ksh %jobno syntax *was* documented. The fact that it must be an
interactive shell was not. Was I wrong to use it in a script?

> What I hope is that applications developers will treat software
> development as a job to be performed in a professional manner, not as a
> hobby to be done in one's spare time.  

Amen.  Unfortunately, system administration is something I must do as a
hobby in my spare time.  Learning the file system, system calls, etc.
well enough to develop robust applications is a full time job.  Learning
shells, tty drivers, user account management, etc.  is a full time job,
too.  I try my best to do both, but writing applications has priority.

In general, I could not agree with your positions more.  I just don't
think I was taking advantage of 'undocumented features'.  Do you?
-- 
	       Bruce Wehr (wehr%dptc.decnet@srlvx0.srl.ford.com)
    (...!mailrus!sharkey!fmeed1!wehr) (wehr%fmeed1.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu)
		   Ford Motor Company - Electronics Division
  17000 Rotunda Drive, DPTC Room LN081, Dearborn, Michigan 48121 (313)845-3039