Re: Ada generics are bad

[Jonathan Guthrie <jguthrie@brokersys.com>]

In comp.lang.ada Robert Munck <munck@Mill-Creek-Systems.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 00:58:23 -0700, matthew_heaney@acm.org (Matthew
> Heaney) wrote:
> >... If there's a problem, and I have the source, then at
> >least I can fix it; ...

> Nonsense.  You fix a "broken" feature so that it works the way
> you want it to, and then the developer comes out with a new 
> release in which that feature either stays the way it was or
> is changed to work a different way.  Now what do you do? "Fix"
> it again?  Change all of you existing documents that use that
> feature of the app?  Either way, you end up spending all of 
> your time fixing all of your application packages.

Actually, the third option is the one we take.  We ignore the new
release.  Since "free software" means never having to upgrade,
we don't need to bear the burden of an operating system that has
to be upgraded at someone else's whim.  We can continue to use "old,
but working fine" forever.

If a newer version of some software provides a feature that we feel
is important, then we evaluate the cost of performing the upgrade and
compare that to the expected benefits of performing the upgrade and
make an informed decision about OUR needs, not the needs of some
marketing VP whose revenues are a little short for the quarter.

What we give up for this freedom to use what we choose is the so-called
"support" that people try to get from the major software companies.  If
I have a package that basically works, and I have the source (for those
times when it does not) I don't need support.

-- 
Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com)
Information Broker Systems   +281-895-8101   http://www.brokersys.com/
12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX  77014, USA

We sell Internet access and commercial Web space.  We also are general
network consultants in the greater Houston area.