The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steffen Nurpmeso <>
To: steve jenkin <>
Cc: TUHS <>
Subject: [TUHS] Re: Has this been discussed on-list? How Unix changed Software.
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2022 15:08:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

steve jenkin wrote in
 |Doug, Larry et al,
 |Thanks very much for the history - unaware of those stories/ facts.
 |I’ve scanned the 1989 Miller et al paper, will read properly soon.
 |The legacy of that paper is the extensive automatic testing now commonpl\
 |ace in large Open Software projects.

The "overly misused automatic testing" in my opinion.  I have seen
commit hooks etc which start test builds and test runs for any
change, whatever it may be.  (Like adding a period in a manual, so
it cannot have beeen a Google clang one, heh.)  Like going to the
fantastic for which' advertising i do not even get
money (stupid left wing..).

And then there are thirty years and more in between.

And isn't it ISO 9001 who requires extensive testing?(??)

You also have extensive testing (i hope) for nuclear and airplanes
and what.  Question is: why is wc(1) not implemented to use three
distinct logical code paths, and then choose the result which is
delivered by the majority of them?  There are plenty of different
algorithms for wc(1), i personally am still stunned by the variant
that i think Ken Thompson implemented (!?), and that can still be
found in plan9port of Russ Cox (and more), as well as the 9front
successor of Plan9 as such.  I would never have thought this, but
i would never have thought Aho-Corasick for fgrep either.

And then i think you have to see that by then relatively few
people were working on the absolute base level with quite
restricted possibilities in power.
And word was received that they simply reported bugs they
encountered during their daily work, so that "when Dennis came in
the evening he would find them, and fix it overnight".  More or
less.  They had a job to do, and they wrote the tools to do that.
This was science, exploration, desire, and, hm, military needs,
i would say.

So whereas i think what you said is totally right, i also think it
is not.  I also would not explain it with business, as bugs are
costly.  I think it is simply natural continuation of a thing,
which gets more and more sophisticated and masterly the longer it
is done.  Now whereas one might (good) testing is also that, easy
re-verification of a status quo helps even the masterly
experienced.  Having said _that_, Plan9 did not have any tests
i think...  But go(1) has quite a lot, and shares many heads.

|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-09-07 13:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-06 15:07 Douglas McIlroy
2022-09-06 17:13 ` Larry McVoy
2022-09-07  1:40 ` steve jenkin
2022-09-07  2:33   ` segaloco via TUHS
2022-09-07  4:08     ` Steve Jenkin
2022-09-07 13:08   ` Steffen Nurpmeso [this message]
2022-09-07 14:56   ` Larry McVoy
2022-09-07 21:27     ` Steve Jenkin
2022-09-07 22:36       ` Larry McVoy
2022-09-08 14:42       ` Paul Winalski
2022-09-08 15:02         ` Larry McVoy
2022-09-08 15:04         ` ron minnich
2022-09-08 15:52           ` Warner Losh
2022-09-08 16:47             ` Paul Winalski
2022-09-08 16:50             ` segaloco via TUHS
2022-09-08 17:58               ` ron minnich
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-09-06 19:04 Douglas McIlroy
2022-09-05 23:48 [TUHS] " steve jenkin
2022-09-06 16:09 ` [TUHS] " Marc Donner
2022-09-07  4:00   ` steve jenkin
2022-09-07 14:58     ` John Cowan
2022-09-07 17:13     ` Paul Winalski
2022-09-08 14:12       ` Paul Winalski
2022-09-07  5:15   ` steve jenkin
2022-09-07 13:20     ` Dan Cross
2022-09-07 13:52       ` Steve Nickolas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).