TONT 35213 为什么 CreateProcess 函数会做自动修正?


Programs that weren’t designed to handle long file names would make mistakes like taking the path to the executable and writing it into the registry, unaware that the path might contain a space that needs quoting. (Spaces—while technically legal—were extremely rare in SFN paths.) The CreateProcess function had to decide whether to “autocorrect” these invalid paths or to let those programs simply stop working.

在设计阶段没有考虑处理长文件名的应用程序,在实际运行时处理诸如获取可执行文件路径、并将其写入注册表时可能出现一些纰漏,因为其意识不到路径中可能包含空格,需要用(英文)引号包裹起来。(虽然在短文件名体系下的路径中包含空格是合法的,但这种情况极为罕见)。CreateProcess 函数不得不做出一些(额外的)努力,来判定是为这些无效路径做一些『自动修正』,还是放任其停止工作算了。

This is the battle between pragmatism and purity.


Purity says, “Let them suffer for their mistake. We’re not going to sully our beautiful architecture to accomodate such stupidity.” Of course, such an attitude comes with a cost: People aren’t going to use your “pure” system if it can’t run the programs that they require.


Put another way, it doesn’t matter how great your 1.0 version is if you don’t survive long enough to make a 2.0.


Your choice is between “being pure and unpopular” or “being pragmatic and popular”. Look at all the wonderful technologies that died for lack of popularity despite technical superiority. Sony Betamax. Mattel Intellivision. (And, in the United States: The metric system.)

你需要在『纯粹但无人问津』和『活跃且广为接受』做出选择。回顾一下那些虽然技术上优越、但由于缺乏流行度最终悻悻而终的技术吧。Sony Betamax,Mattel Intellivison都是例子。(在美国,还有公制系统也一样。)

Electric cars are another example. As great as electric cars are, they never reached any significant market success. Only after conceding to popularity and “sullying” their “purity” by adding a gasoline hybrid engine did they finally gain acceptance.


I see this happening over and over again. A product team that, hypothetically, makes automated diagramming software, says, “I can’t believe we’re losing to Z. Sure, Z’s diagrams may be fast and snazzy, but ours gets <subtle detail> right, and when you go to <extreme case> their diagrams come out a little distorted, and they’re faster only because they don’t try to prevent X and Y from overlapping each other in <scenario Q>. We’re doing all those things; that’s why we’re slower, but that’s also why we’re better. Those people over at Z just don’t ‘get it’.”


Guess what. People are voting with their wallets, and right now their wallets are saying that Z is better in spite of all those “horrible flaws”. Whatever part of “it” they don’t get, it’s certainly not the “make lots of people so happy that they send you money” part.




电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注

 剩余字数 ( Characters available )

Your comment will be available after auditing.

Please DO NOT add any links in your comment, otherwise it would be identified as SPAM automatically and never be audited.