3 ms·
> robust, clear, well-tested, and easy to maintain systems I wonder if that's how the implementors of software that actually lasted for decades would describe
by zorked 6y ago
> robust, clear, well-tested, and easy to maintain systems
I wonder if that's how the implementors of software that actually lasted for decades would describe their work or motivation.
Does this describe Unix, for example? In particular the old AT&T version, not GNU (or even modern BSD) code.
- kwhat4 6y agoMay of the design philosophies laid by smart people like Eric Raymond are very well documented: https://medium.com/programming-philosophy/eric-raymond-s-17-unix-rules-399ac802807 https://medium.com/programming-philosophy/eric-raymond-s-17-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Unix_Programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Unix_Programming
- blablabla123 6y ago> Does this describe Unix, for example? In particular the old AT&T version, not GNU At least to me. Having all these composable commands, unimaginable through how many iterations all that stuff went. I also think that Go was created in that spirit, with robustness/conciseness being more important than anything. Although it seems the language and its philosophy is adapting to more common ways of doing things.
- the_why_of_y 6y agoResearch from 1995 [1] indicates that robustness was not a strength of AT&T UNIX. "The reliability of the basic utilities from GNU and Linux were noticeably better than those of the commercial systems." [0] ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/paradyn/technical_papers/fuzz.pdf [1] ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/paradyn/technical_papers/fuzz-revisited.pdf