From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9d5fc258548b22a X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address? Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <4d5031fe$0$6765$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <1f229967-d3cf-42b6-8087-c97ee08652f3@i40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <4d51169e$0$7657$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <1bnp0pw1c8r5b$.guxc48qweiwe.dlg@40tude.net> <1ju2bba947c1h.y05qev0wjx2t.dlg@40tude.net> <25z0jyvibze7.1pi559yfki5lo$.dlg@40tude.net> <611bc17f-753c-48bb-9c28-dc5e810085dc@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <4d52c3c5$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <0be28ab4-84dc-4245-b6f7-264baaed776d@8g2000prt.googlegroups.com> <4d52cc67$0$19481$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <4d52da59$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:34:38 +0100 Message-ID: <1gb9uaqvcot1s.1kgrfw1nqvbmc$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 Feb 2011 19:34:35 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 8500426f.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=802Mo:NTa?gJ00P1S40fZgA9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa8kFI2i`iT7Q2KB On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:17:59 -0500, Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 2/9/2011 1:02 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:15:53 -0500, Hyman Rosen wrote: >> >>> Yes. If I'm going to believe someone who is claiming that >>> certain things are wrong and need to be improved, I want >>> to look at their work to see evidence that it is better >>> than that of the people they criticize. >> >> No, you cannot. There are economical reasons (ruined, non-functioning >> market of software), why it is impossible for anybody to design software >> properly. Even if they wanted. Those who couldn't sell their souls are out >> of business, long ago. There are some small niches remaining, rapidly >> closing. Something must happen, really disastrous (and it will), that would >> make the society and the law makers to rethink the ways. But so far >> everybody is happy except for a couple of retrogrades from c.l.a. > > How can you consider something to be "proper design" when > it cannot produce working software in a timely fashion? "Working" needs to be defined. > Software exists to do things, not to live in perfect and > abstract beauty. A design methodology must be able to > produce the ting it is meant to produce by the time it is > needed, or it is not a useful methodology. No, the technology must be able to produce an economically reasonable product. The software industry in its present state is not economically sustainable because the producers are not liable to software faults. Which means that there exist hidden costs of software paid by others. This is a form socialism (distribution of wealth), which is known for not working. > When other methodologies do so, and then someone comes along > and says the results of those methodologies are garbage, I > would consider him a crank - after all, here is the product > in front of me, and to all appearances it works as it should. Here is a steak infected by botulin in front of you. How do you know it works as it should? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de