Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 1999
>> So you can never say "This is <XXX>" and say anything ultimately meaningful. >> However, you can say "This is this." Without regard to what any piece of >> documentation says, you have the system and can examine it. One may test the >> 'features' of the system empirically and compare the computed results with >> expectations. Then you have an accurate description of what you have ... > >Agree 100%. Curiously enough, I also agree with this. It is, in fact, the whole point. *I* may "test the system empirically and compare the computed results with expectations", a shell script developed on some other computer cannot. It isn't smart enough. It doesn't know the questions to ask on this system and is unable to deduce the proper trail to follow when it can't figure out the answer. Once I discover and correct the flaw in the database that describes my system, the next piece of portable software that I try to build stands a much better chance of working if it uses the database. On the other hand, if it is just using some random variation on the same old shell script that doesn't know the answer, the next piece of software won't be any simpler to port than the last piece... And it is much simpler to fix an incorrect statment in a collection of statements than it is to fix an incorrect algorithm in a twisty maze of shell script, especially when you need to make sure the fix won't break the script on some other machine. -- Tom.Horsley@mail.ccur.com \\\\ Will no one rid me of Concurrent Computers, Ft. Lauderdale, FL \\\\ this troublesome Me: http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/ \\\\ autoconf? Project Vote Smart: http://www.vote-smart.org \\\\ !!!!!Thread Previous