On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 08:11:25PM +0000, phoebus phoebus wrote: > Hello, > [...]
> I want to emphasize that your response reflects a clear understanding of our > specific needs and the constraints we are facing in this project. Thanks to confirming my mental model :-) [phoebus phoebus] > Yes, that's indeed how it used to work. In our case, the complex escapery you > mentioned, for instance, involves the printing process using the ESC/POS > printer control language. > > >> So the thing is just a natural evolution dating back to The Dinosaurs. > > While it may seem unusual and archaic by today's standards, this approach has > proven to be an effective solution for addressing the needs of our business. > It has been thoughtfully evaluated and retained because it ensures the > efficient execution of our application while aligning with our business > requirements. Just like certain evolutionary traits persist over time in the > process of Darwinism, this approach endures, indicating that the choice isn't > as misguided as it may appear. Don't get me wrong: I'm not criticising your decision process. I'm long enough in this business to know that technical processes are evolutory. You change a few things and keep most of the rest (because that "rest" is so overwhelmingly complex and huge that you have to). Which parts to keep and which to change is a tough decision which IMO has to be taken by the people involved. Things like "disruption" are, in my view,just empty marketing terms :-) So no, I don't believe your choice is misguided. Who am I to. I still believe you'll have an easier (technical) life if you separate the terminal and the "dispatching" process (now talking about UNIX processes) -- the latter might be minicom or something in its class, or something written in C, Python or Perl or whatever your folks are comfortable with. The fact that both have a separate address space is hidden in the "Linux box", which may well be a Raspi or something similar. But I'm aware that I might well be wrong: if one of us is wrong, then it's me :-) Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
