12/7    God I hate doing sustaining work.  --disgruntled employee
        \_ ehhh...Are you not CS major?  If you are, why are you doing
        sustaining work?
           \_ I am CS.  Someone's gotta fix the bugs.
              I just hate fixing other people's product bugs.
                \_ 'sustaining work' is for gimps.  Are you intelligent?
                   If so, get yourself some real core work, or quit and get
                   core work at a different company.
        \_ yet another reason why it's hard to keep engineers happy.  You
           jump up and down on new projects and new technology, but you fail
           to understand the big picture.  The big picture is: WHERE IS THE
           MONEY?  Cool projects are meaningless if it doesn't make any money.
           "Sustaining work" is what makes a good product better and it is
           what rakes in the big bucks.  -management
           \_ Yeah money in your pocket, just how much you pay a sustaining
              guy?
                \_ I get 80k/y.  Doesn't seem worth it... --disgruntled
                   \_ It's not.  I repeat my question.  Are you smart?  If so,
                      what are you doing wasting your life in gimp work.  If
                      not, well, this kind of work is what you were born to do.
                      \_ 80k/yr is fine for someone one year out of college.
                         Maybe he is just earning his stripes.
                         \_ What is the cash value of the lost
                            skill development and contentedness incurred
                            by being a gimp?
           \_ yeah, keep doing that at a startup... see how far that gets.
              no real value add == death to company.
        \_ If you don't like it, don't do it.  It's as simple as that.
           I happen to enjoy terrorizing wimpy developers by finding tons
           of bugs in their crappy work, and making them swallow them.
           Unfortunately, that sometimes involves development work -
           building load tools to crash their lousy code.

12/7    I want to be cool like ranga. ----troll

12/7    Eh, why are some virtuals set to 0 (pure virtual) and some are not?
        The following should look familiar to people who have been killed
        in the class:

#define Expression_SHARED_EXTRAS                \
virtual tree_node *createPARSETree();           \
virtual void scope_check();                     \
virtual void insert_type();                      \
virtual Symbol type_check();                      \

#define Case_EXTRAS                             \
virtual tree_node *createPARSETree() = 0;       \
virtual void scope_check() = 0;                 \
virtual void insert_type() = 0;                 \
virtual Symbol type_check() = 0;                  \
        \_ if someone can answer this, please do.  I want to know too.
        \_ defining as virtual = 0  to create an interface definition or
        abstract class
           \_ Yes.  In particular, pure virtual functions are a signal to both
              the compiler and client code that this class is not expected
              to be instantiated, only inherited from.  It also requires any
              child classes to provide the method, but doesn't provide a
              default implementation.  There are many situations where this
              is exactly what you want.  You may not really get this until
              you're trying to make a framework of code that other people
              are expected to use, but not modify... -mogul

12/7    I want to be long like ranga. ----troll

12/7    How do you auto generate table of contents in Frame Maker?

12/7    Does ipf have the blocking on uid/gid capabilities of ipfw?