Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!mce
From: mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Spleen venting (was: Re: 32-bit OS)
Message-ID: <10601@fluke.COM>
Date: 23 Aug 89 17:16:42 GMT
References: <22321@andante.UUCP> <1989Aug19.221033.2241@geology.wisc.edu> <8352@hoptoad.uucp> <34184@apple.Apple.COM> <2601@iscuva.ISCS.COM>
Sender: news@tc.fluke.COM
Organization: Guild of the Software Defenestrators
Lines: 27

In article <2601@iscuva.ISCS.COM> jimc@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Jim Cathey) writes:
>I _like_ the 16-bit integers and all that entails.  They serve as a constant
>reminder to _think_ about what ranges I need, and why.  The long is there for
>when they won't serve.
>
>I suppose spending a few minutes thinking about things _is_ too much
>for some, but let's let them continue to bang their shins on real-life
>systems and piss-n-moan about it.  _We_ know better don't we?  Sooner
>or later they'll learn, and we'll all be better off.  We won't appease
>the uninformed by breaking our tools so they're less efficient.  (You know,
>32-bit ints, >32K globals for huge static arrays, VM, things like...  oh-oh!)

I *hate* 16-bit integers and all of the stupidity it shows: the assumption
that you can predict the future ("oh, no one could possibly need something
that large").  Programming is hard.  Arbitrary limits are bad and make
programming even harder, especially in system software!  Efficiency is only
*one* issue (I don't care how fast a program does the wrong thing).

I've always been amazed that Intel and IBM are publicly castrated for the
segmented, 16-bit, 8086 family, but Apple turning a 32-bit 68000 into a
segmented 15-bit architecture is Just Fine.  [And, yes, I am quite aware of
the (very good) reasons why.  I just hope, in vain, that the same mistake is
not repeated in System 7.0]
 
 
Brian McElhinney
mce@tc.fluke.com