Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Bloat costs Message-ID: <266576A7.6D17@tct.uucp> Date: 31 May 90 19:55:18 GMT References: <640@sibyl.eleceng.ua.OZ> <2662CE6C.3E68@tct.uucp> <26798@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Organization: ComDev/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 20 According to pjg@acsu.Buffalo.EDU (Paul Graham): >now if one wishes to discuss the relative merits of writing straight >forward code (the obvious way) versus bumming every last byte or >whether life-cycle costs are better served by long term maintenance >issues or short term resource issues it would seem another group >is in order. I consider comp.arch to be the right place. Among the forces driving computer architecture are the decisions programmers make. And, of course, computer architecture drives many decisions programmers make. And I would like to know whether anyone agrees with Mr. Graham that "resource issues" are "short term" while "maintenance issues" are "long term." Resources are used as long as you run a program; maintenance is over whenever you decide to stop maintaining it. The latter often happens before the former. -- Chip, the new t.b answer man ,