Xref: utzoo comp.os.minix:7730 comp.unix.xenix:8296
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!bungia!orbit!marilyn!shawn
From: shawn@marilyn.UUCP (Shawn P. Stanley)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: dosread.c again
Message-ID: <5@marilyn.UUCP>
Date: 26 Oct 89 03:16:49 GMT
References: <3717@ast.cs.vu.nl> <3a18.2536ede8@ibmpcug.co.uk> <3721@ast.cs.vu.nl> <1989Oct23.155023.28185@utzoo.uucp> <2521@ucsfcca.ucsf.ed
Reply-To: shawn@marilyn.UUCP (Shawn P. Stanley)
Followup-To: comp.os.minix
Organization: Litfal
Lines: 23

In article <2521@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> root@cca.ucsf.edu (Systems Staff) writes:
>As soon as the suppliers found out they could charge more for a big
>program than for a small one that did the same job the game changed.

I disagree.  If that were as true as you appear to think it is, there would
be more marketing effort put into informing potential users as to the "new
and improved" size of the programs.

Rather, I believe that through the years companies have made more and more
use of high-level languages to write their applications, which is of course
going to use more space, but at the same time the programmer is more free
to think of the application itself and not just the details of coding.

Object-oriented programming may or may not take this a step further.  The
concept is so new, I have to believe that most programmers are still
learning how much or how little to put into a single object so that you
don't have to write too many objects to deal with them, or re-write objects
because they don't allow enough manipulation or flexibility.

Add to this the fact that UNIX is much more commonplace than before, with
programmers that are used to programming on bigger machines with more
features, and what you have in the end is not intentional hogging but the
evolution of the MS-DOS world, for better or for worse.