Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:26390 comp.software-eng:2960
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: C Community's Cavalier Attitude On Software Reliability
Keywords: Unprofessional Irresponsible
Message-ID: <15213@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 28 Feb 90 14:02:40 GMT
References: <8147@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1990Feb28.063643.13294@Jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Lines: 24

I think what Bill Wolfe is getting at is this: C and UNIX derive from a
milieu where admitting fallibility is not a sin because the "consumers"
are programmers, whose competence, understanding and goodwill are
assumed; and where explaining bugs up front is considered a plus,
because it saves programmer time later on.

By contrast, "big computer company" tradition emphasizes the *appearance*
of infallibility -- never admit bugs up front because your competition
will eat your lunch.  Instead, pour money into glossy docs that paint
your product as the ultimate in completeness and perfection, *regardless*
of what a bug-filled mess it really is.  Handle the messy end only after
the check clears. :-)

What he appears to be saying is that if C and UNIX want to beat IBM at
its own game, to win in the marketplace despite programmer curses and
muttering, they will have to drop the embarrassing candor and get a
haircut.

This might even be true except the horse is out of the barn.  C and UNIX
have *already* been adopted by all the big computer companies, who are
diligently working to produce infallible-sounding derivatives with
gleaming three-color docs.  So who's left?  Has Bill been reading the
Berkeley manuals and wishing they'd go corporate too?  Dream on; they
have no motivation.