Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!HERMES.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@HERMES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: and Re: strins()
Message-ID: <8906222055.AA24297@hermes.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 22 Jun 89 20:55:31 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 26

:Chuck McManis (cmcmanis@sun.com) Writes:
:To kick a completely dead horse, another 10' out into the pasture ...
:
:The question :
:	"Why use strxxx() routines when sprintf() is easier to read/use ?"
:
:The answer : (from several sources) 
:	"Because the stdio printf is _huge_."
:
:In article <8906150029.AA22430@jade.berkeley.edu> ("Eric Edwards") writes:
:> Lattice uses a bultin function to get arround this problem in printf.
:
:Good for Lattice, unfortunately they don't define the standard for the
:world. In general when designing useful utility routines like strins()
:you must work from the assumption that the compiler is minimally compliant
:and doesn't play any games with the library routines. 
:
:--Chuck McManis

	You have to play such games anyway.  For example, when I write a
program under UNIX I don't usually worry about massive stack usage (like
having a recursive subroutine that declares 100 bytes of local variables,
or declaring temporary char buffers as locals in subroutines).  Neither
do I worry about code size all that much under UNIX.

					-Matt