5 ms·
I find it hard to understand why people "expect" perfection from code written by humans. Shit breaks, people make mistakes, deal with it. Is anyone in their rig
by ashwinaj 10y ago
I find it hard to understand why people "expect" perfection from code written by humans. Shit breaks, people make mistakes, deal with it. Is anyone in their right minds to expect perfectly written software, while at the same time adding new features without things breaking in some obscure (or obvious way)?
All this post-mortem of "I would have done it this way or that way or written in this new super shiny language (which probably has bugs too)" is nothing but a bunch of nonsense. Rant over!
- matt_wulfeck 10y agoI think the response is reasonable. We expect safer code for critical processes, and we can rightfully consider pid 1 in that category. The standards are different for systemd. Indeed they are much higher, just as they are higher for crypto libraries, medical software, etc.
- agwa 10y ago> I find it hard to understand why people "expect" perfection from code written by humans. Shit breaks, people make mistakes, deal with it. Is anyone in their right minds to expect perfectly written software, while at the same time adding new features without things breaking in some obscure (or obvious way)? Absolutely right, which is why software, especially critical components, should be written in a fail-safe way that anticipates errors by programmers. systemd is not written this way: just look at the unsafe-by-default umask and the fact that a failure in message parsing can bring down all of systemd, preventing a clean reboot.