[Info-vax] Long uptime cut short by Hurricane Sandy

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <keusk1$54t$1 at iltempo.update.uu.se>,
	Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
> On 2013-02-06 04:34, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <kes0hc$ghh$2 at dont-email.me>,
>> 	David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>>> In article <kermfk$i2b$1 at dont-email.me>, David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>>>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ker9jj$nbi$1 at dont-email.me>, Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>> On 2013-02-05 02:17:28 +0000, AEF said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 3:31 pm, Stephen Hoffman <seaoh... at hoffmanlabs.invalid>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Environment variables aren't a direct match to logical names.
>>>>>>>>> Similarities, yes, but there also are substantive differences, too.
>>>>>>>> Close enough for this. I just need to be able to use the variable as
>>>>>>>> part of a path.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems to me that at the most basic level, logical names are
>>>>>>>> environment variables, in a sense anyway. Now, they have a much richer
>>>>>>>> structure, with the different tables of varying scope, the various
>>>>>>>> access modes, search lists, and what not. Their chief use is in
>>>>>>>> device- and file-specs, of course. But they're also used in MAIL, for
>>>>>>>> queues, for storing data, and more. So it's just a matter of what's
>>>>>>>> translating them in what context. There's the automatic translation
>>>>>>>> when part of a generalized file-spec, and automatic translation in
>>>>>>>> certain other contexts. That's all different from environment
>>>>>>>> variables in Unix. But I don't need all that for this. I just need the
>>>>>>>> ability to have something I can use in a path.
>>>>>>> So you are seeking a key-value data store, something that logical names
>>>>>>> classically excel at stinking at.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Logical names got us the morass that is the DEC C feature logical
>>>>>>> names, after all.
>>>>>> Logical names did not create the morass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many things (tools) can be misused.  It's not the fault of the tool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because you can drive a screw with a big enough hammer is not the
>>>>> fault of either the screw or the hammer.
>>>>
>>>> Aye!  And when all you have is a hammer, all the problems look like nails!
>>>
>>> Ah, but while I have a few rarely used hammers laying around, I have 4
>>> cordless drills, usable as screwdrivers.  Alas, only 2 hands ....
>>
>> You ought to look in my toolbox.  I have at least 10 hammers, all different
>> and all intended for different jobs.  Hammers don't just drive nails.  And
>> even in that case, there is not one hammer to drive all nails.
>>
>> Maybe the old hammer/nail analogy is not as good as most people think.
> 
> Me thinks you missed the point of the hammer/nail analogy.
> If you only have *a hammer*, then every problem looks like a nail. As 
> soon as you even have several hammers, you are no longer inside the 
> scope of the analogy. Stop having several tools... :-)
> 
> If you only have one hammer, you will use it to drive all nails. Believe 
> me...

Oh, I understand that.  Most people who look in my toolbox ask why
I have so many hammers.  Some can understand 2 or even 3 of them,
but a dozen!

It stretches the analogy.  Even people who know a hammer isn't for
screws think 1 hammer any nail.  But even that isn't really correct. 
It all comes back to the right tool for the job and even in tasks
most people lthink are simple choosing the right tool might be
harder than they think.  And that goes triple with computers.

bill


-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>