Maestro program for operating Spirit and Opportunity

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

- Spirit is
apparently in trouble.

Maybe it ran over a beagle ?

Steve

steve wrote:
You don't know what would be possible, even on that hardware, because
most programmers have fallen into Greg's trap.

"Greg's trap." I said nothing about a trap. If you are implying that I
write bloated software then you are being libelous.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about. Show me an email program
that requires a 3 GHz computer or 3 GB of disk space. Where is it? If
somehow such a beast does exist, then I'll bet there is a good reason
for it: some sort of two way multimedia capability, for instance. If it
is somehow the product of poor software engineering then blame the
specific programmers involved, not the entire industry.

The Maestro program that is *supposed* to be the topic of this thread is
designed to handle multiple images that can be many GB in size. That's
not your Grannies image processor. It is a task which, by nature,
requires a great amount of resources.

I'll say it again, to sit there and complain that today's programers are
stupid or lazy just because programs often take advantage of the
resources available in order to accomplish new and interesting tasks is
"absolute nonsense."


--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message
...
Steve Taylor wrote:
Greg Crinklaw wrote:

When you think that the whole Lunar Lander fitted into 36Kwords of
HARDWIRED rom, far less than a modern PC BIOS, you have to despair of
the state of "modern" software engineering.

That's absolute nonsense.

In what way ?
http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/computer.htm

Reliability and lots of functionality in minimum resources.

The expectation that we now need a 2 Gig desktop PC to write a letter is
_absolute_ nonsense

Then go back to your Commodore 64 if it was so much better. By-the-way,
my first program was on a TI 98C (?) calculator. The idea that
programmers should spend all their time packing as much as they can into
the tinniest space possible when they can spend their time more
appropriately? Now that's absurd. A good program should make use of
the resources available. It's like saying, "Yeah, these modern soldiers
with M-16's that miss the target sometimes -- what wimps! You should
have seen us in the good old days. We used spears and men were men.
Anybody who doesn't use a spear isn't a real soldier."

It's just curmudgeonly sour grapes.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html


There was an interesting programme a few years back which related to the
software writing for the Airbus family of aircraft. Airbus decided that each
of the three main computers would have software written by independent
groups to try and prevent the same "bugs" (sorry features!) being present in
each computer. However, when they traced the background back of the
programmers, most had come from the same universities and had probably had
the same tutors. I don't know if this is still the same today.

Martin

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Oh here we go again. Stephen, find someone else to have an argument with.

Ah. I see. Can't respond to the substantive points I made then?

Byeeee.....

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Stephen Tonkin wrote:

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

Oh here we go again. Stephen, find someone else to have an argument
with.


Ah. I see. Can't respond to the substantive points I made then?

You made no substantive points Stephen. You just sniped at me
mercilessly. I'm surprised you didn't claim I misspelled my name. Your
comments were as mean spirited as they were uninformed. You should
stick to subjects you know something about, like dancing. Given our
past history I do not understand why would make an attack like this.
You are being an ass, pure and simple.

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
[paranoid raving excised]
You are being an ass, pure and simple.

Ah, the good old /ad hominem/ argument. The resort of the discursive
bankrupt, IME. However, I'll not labour the point, so how about this
instead:

I apologise unreservedly for daring to hold and express an opinion that
differed in any way from yours. I know that I should have realised by
now that you are always right and that my place in the grand scheme of
things is to wait with bated breath for your every pronouncement, then
lower my gaze, tug my forelock, and chant "We are not worthy".

Happy now?


[To the rest of the NG: I apologise for thinking that my dropping of a
few salient facts into a discussion might elicit anything other than an
intemperate response from this buffoon. I was wrong. I'll drop it now.]

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
[...]
Given our past history I do not understand why would make an attack
like this.

Clue: I did not attack you. I disagreed with your opinion. There is a
distinction, whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Stephen,

I find your manner of "expressing your opinion" to be needlessly
abrasive and disrespectful. In short, it ticks me off. You write to me
the same way I'd write to some lunatic that have have zero respect for.
That's my personal perspective. It's probably just a personality
thing. Some people just rub each other the wrong way. I'm not
criticizing you. So I feel it best for us to go back to not having any
direct disagreements. What do I mean by direct? I mean, please express
your own opinion without tearing mine apart on a line by line basis.
Fair enough?

Thanks,
Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

"Stephen Tonkin" wrote in message
...
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
[...]
Given our past history I do not understand why would make an attack
like this.

Clue: I did not attack you. I disagreed with your opinion. There is a
distinction, whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Nothing wrong with healthy debate in my book.

Martin

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
[opinions on how I should express myself]
Fair enough?

No, it isn't. I express my self in my way. How you choose to react to it
is your responsibility, not mine.

Anyway, I've had enough of this. I have expressed my opinion on
bloatware, and I have expressed my opinion on your reaction to my
opinion. It is already off topic for this NG, so if you wish to
continue, you'll be playing alone.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +