Darren New wrote:
> When it breaks, it's not always obvious to the programmer why it broke, 
> so giving a meaningful error message isn't always possible. If the 
> programmer knew why it broke, they'd have fixed the problem instead of 
> giving an error message.
> 
True, but, too often they don't provide the program with a clear clue 
what to do when something goes wrong that "should be" a possible problem 
either. :p Computer teacher in high school and the ones in college 
"both" said, "Its not enough to assume the data going in is right, so 
make sure if its wrong, the program can do something 'rational' with it, 
if it is wrong, like generating an error report." ;)

> Log entries aren't error messages. They're success messages. If success 
> is what you're expecting, you don't need to look at the log records.
> 
Almost like one game on the old Apple IIs, if you hit some combination 
of control keys it would generate a message, "Congratulations, you find 
a bug we didn't expect." lol It didn't crash, but the result made us 
laugh our asses off.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message