Hi,

Irrwahn wrote:
<< apparently simply content with
writing bad code >>

Bad code is not good for anyone let alone as an init. What I am doing
it experimenting so that I further understand which lines of the code
play the central roles and which lines play auxiliary roles. In my
almost fifty years of existence I have always worked that way as that
gives me feedback whether I am understanding or not. Simply
reproducing by rote like primary school children is not enough, at
least for me. I have the type of mind that to remember facts, I need
to understand them. Yes, it is a disadvantage in many areas, but that
is the way I am.

Regarding the claim that I lack basic understanding of the concepts,
that is not true. I do understand the concepts but sometimes I have
difficulty interpreting some symbolic meanings which have nothing to
do with the concepts themselves. The concept of a pointer exists no
matter how it is represented by a programming language. The problem is
again caused by memory which is failing to attach the symbols to the
proper representation, but definitely not the concepts. As to my
questions about pointer use, this was not about the concept itself as
I have been using pointers before and actually liked them. It is the
memory that represents the symbols themselves that is weak not the
understanding of the concepts.

Since I now understood the why and how zombies are reaped by init, I
will continue to improve it to be actually useable and stable.

Edward

On 14/06/2016, Irrwahn <irrwahn@???> wrote:
> [Afer the fact I notice this has become a rather wordy
> message, mainly due to my difficulties to express myself
> clearly in plain English; please ignore at at will.]
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:14:15 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>
>> You and I have a difference of beliefs concerning learning. You believe
>> in foundation-first learning, and I believe in just-in-time learning.
>> Either works, in the hands of the right practitioner.
>
> I'm not sure we're actually _that_ different. I had (and still
> have) to do a lot of just-in-time learning. However, and that
> to me is *extremely* important, I feel the need to not only
> quickly learn *how* to do something to get the job done, but
> to actually understand *what* I am doing, and what the possible
> repercussions are of doing it one way or the other. The reason
> behind that need being nothing less than the urge to feel
> confident enough that I did everything in my power to avoid
> major damage being caused by my code when released in the wild.
> (No, it's not that I ever wrote code for avionics or medical
> appliances, not do I intend to, but I'm always concerned about
> some person getting physically hurt by my code failing.)
>
> If I'd be content with just scraping by with gathering just
> enough knowledge to somehow make the darn thing appear to work
> at first glance, kick it out the door and job done, I would
> never have written a single line of quality code in my life.
> Just to be clear, and truth be told: I've certainly produced
> my good share of b6t code over the years. But there are pieces
> that I am proud of, because not only can I reproducibly proof
> /that/ it works, but also rationalize /how/ and /why/ it works.
>
> What I am trying to say (and it's surprisingly difficult for me
> to explain it in English), is that unless you're overly pedantic
> you'll only ever produce bush-league code. And even *if* you
> are overly pedantic, there are still enough errors lingering
> in your code, because to err is human. But, to be pedantic
> about something, you'd have to know why that something is what
> it is, and how it came to be what it is. If e.g. compiler
> writers or kernel developers weren't as pedantic as they are,
> we won't even have a foundation to build an operating system on.
>
>> All these approaches, whether in code or in learning, are useful in some
>> situations. You have decades of C, and perhaps knew C would be your
>> major career, so you had time to learn the foundations.
>
> I was young. I had the time. I needed the money. My career was
> supposed to be that of a chemical engineer. Go figure! ;-)
>
>> On the other
>> hand, I was always a hired gun writing the software the client wanted
>> in the language he wanted, so I had to learn quick. Also, I have a
>> feeling that your memory is both broader and longer lasting than mine.
>> There are only so many fundamentals I can remember.
>
> I guess I was always eager to learn not only how things are,
> but also why they are the way they are. My memory has never
> been the best, but I've probably penetrated my simple brain
> with enough information that inevitably some pieces had to
> stick. Or at least some vague knowledge of where to retrieve
> those pieces from, should I ever forget. Even nowadays, while
> programming, I always have a terminal window with some manpage
> open, and a hardcopy of the C standard is always in my arms
> reach.[1] As I said, I'm sure we're not that different. It's
> just that I'm very insecure, at the brink of being paranoid,
> when it comes to hand over some piece of code, and take
> responsibility for it. Hence the "worked for me yesterday for
> at least five minutes and half a reboot" attitude just won't
> cut it for me.
>
> Remember Weinberg's Second Law?
> | If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote
> | programs, then the first woodpecker that came along
> | would destroy civilization.
>
> My goal has always been to defeat Weinberg's Second Law to the
> extent possible. To reach that goal I have to have learned the
> basics, no matter if I did it in advance, or do it on the fly
> while already in stuff up to my elbows. The point being: You
> cannot replace basic knowledge, as there is no silver bullet.
> That's BTW something the ancient Greeks knew as well. (That last
> remark is actually intended to be a tongue-in-cheek sideswipe at
> Hendrik's argument from another post in this thread. ;-)
>
>> It feels like Edward's trolling because his actions are completely
>> counter to your beliefs, but in my opinion it's just a different in
>> beliefs.
>
> No, to me it felt like he's trolling because he at times appears
> to just ignore whatever amount of information is thrown in his
> direction, without having the actual expertise necessary to
> assess the potential value of said information. I now understand
> he's not actually trolling, but apparently simply content with
> writing bad code. Not sure if that's any better WRT the end
> product, but at any rate it at worst qualifies as ignorance,
> probably just forgivable lack of focus, but at least in no way
> as malice, fortunately.
>
>> This is a pretty cool group, and I think discussions like this one make
>> us sharper every day.
>
> [SARCASM]
> I have the uneasy feeling I got a bit blunter the past 15 minutes.
> [/SARCASM]
>

> [1] Heck, I even have a dictionary page open right now as I write
>     this post, as my English has always been wonky, and it's been a
>     long day. And no, I feel not in the least embarrassed by that
>     fact, because I know it will improve the quality of the product.
>     And, at the end of the day, that is what matters.

>
> Regards
> Urban
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>