"Reliable" mean I can rely on this software: every documented feature work as expected in all cases.
What you're doing here is adding your own personal requirements and claiming that they are basic necessities. It's just not true. Not everyone needs IPC that supports pipes and lists. Not everyone needs timers that handle someone changing the clock under them. Not everyone needs mailbox parsers that handle all possible formats and survive power failures. So why should they spend their time implementing the features you want, when they already have the ones they need? Adding those features is time-consuming and expensive.
Can you give me full list of perl features which... too complex, or too exotic and which may not be supported by eval()
You picked a great one here. Your complaint about eval is that it doesn't handle source filters? My complaint about perl is that it does handle source filters. I think you're probably the only one on the planet who wants this feature in eval. And the lack of it shows some kind of moral corruption in all perl developers?
| [reply] |
This in turn mean there no sense in patching/bugreporting, just because author doesn't have reliability and security in his goals, and I can't reach these goals in this situation!
I claim pure, unadulterated bovine leavings.
If you can't fix bugs in a piece of software, you're not much of a programmer. Honestly, I'm about ---><-- from putting you in the Noisy Internet Crank bucket forever, and that's after reading three messages from you.
How about dropping the histrionic Smartest-Person-In-The-Room syndrome and actually attempting to work with other people, rather than inventing your own little playrooms? 'cuz you know, some of the people who actually built some of the systems you're dumping on might just care a little bit about this kind of abuse.
| [reply] |
So your definition of "reliable" is that the software has absolutely no bugs and is 100% secure? I'd love for you to provide a list of software ( any software, in any language ) that fits this. :)
As I understand it your definition of "reliable" is a unicorn. A mythical thing that does not exist, but fun to talk about.
| [reply] |