From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: splite@purdue.edu
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] g++
Message-ID: <20030915145443.GA8164@sigint.cs.purdue.edu>
References: <5.1.1.6.0.20030915100743.00a98ff0@pop.monitorbm.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030915100743.00a98ff0@pop.monitorbm.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:54:43 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3728e306-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 10:13:05AM +1200, Andrew Simmons wrote:
> > Because we weren't anywhere near smart enough to build a working
> > kernel in C++.
>
> But surely, if you'd built a Use Case Driven Object Model of the kernel
> using UML, and used the Generic Iteration Workflow concept of the Rational
> Unified Process for the Implementation Phase, you would have had no trouble
> at all.

You'd still need to slap it with a phased verteron pulse, which would
depolarize the resonance frequency generators and generate a subspace
field implosion, inducing a reload of the positronic subprocessors from
the protected memory archive.  Duh.