Error checking, code criticism, and manners

[Chip Salzenberg]

According to brnstnd at kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein):
>You can have an infinite amount of defensive programming, down to
>running a = b + c in triplicate and getting the majority-vote result.

The issue is not processor integrity, but checking reported errors
from system calls.

I appreciate the analysis of the pty program, which I elided.

For the record, I have never accused Dan of being a poor programmer.
My only contention is that criticism of programming style, when
offered, should be given in a spirit of humility and with an almost
complete lack of flat statements.  [:-)]  To do otherwise is not only
unrealistic; it defeats the entire purpose of constructive criticism,
namely, to help the recipient.  If you do not expect the recipient to
benefit from invective, why post it?

>Compared to ``professional'' Berkeley source ...

Berkeley source is a straw man -- everyone knows it's largely horrid.
So is System V source, and even V7 source, for that matter.

>When someone says that a small number of passes is an important goal in
>and of itself, he's being silly.

It's just a heuristic.

>If I didn't have as much respect for you and your work, this article
>would be a lot shorter (and a hell of a lot less polite). Something like
>....

To say "I'm too polite to say <foo>" is to contradict oneself.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT     <chip at tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
 "Most of my code is written by myself.  That is why so little gets done."
                 -- Herman "HLLs will never fly" Rubin