Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!oz
From: oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: JLG's flogging of horses (was Re: Relationship between C and C++)
Message-ID: <9937@yunexus.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 90 21:50:36 GMT
References: <9765@yunexus.UUCP> <14320@lambda.UUCP>
Reply-To: oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Organization: York U. Communications Research & Development
Lines: 31

In article <14320@lambda.UUCP> jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>Oh?  You have done a careful survey of large numbers of sophisticated users
>to back up this claim?

Of course not. I have seen the code they have written. Also, people like
yourself told me so. :-) But than again, it is easy to claim things, and
other people may claim the opposite.

>I have worked in computing for over 18 years now
>and my job never carries me far from the consulting end of the field.

Sigh. Your expertise vs. mine huh ?? Get real, or try tv commercials:
That is where "credibility by illusion" has the most milage. "I am not a real
doctor, but I play one on TV... I think you should use arrays instead of
pointers". ;-)

>I can tell you that sophisticated users tend to be 'full contact' programmers.
>That is, on a given machine they try to get the last ounce of performance
>out of the hardware.  If they have to use non-portable features to do so,
>they do.

That must have been what "sophisticated user" meant 18 years ago. Time to
look around again. :-)

oz

-- 
The king: If there's no meaning	   	    Interned:  oz@nexus.yorku.ca
in it, that saves a world of trouble        ......!uunet!utai!yunexus!oz
you know, as we needn't try to find any.    Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti]
Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland)