Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: Bloat costs Message-ID: <4=-3S-1@ggpc2.ferranti.com> Date: 10 Jun 90 14:31:39 GMT References: <21579@nigel.udel.EDU> <23495@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 21 In article <23495@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> bp@condo.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Pane) writes: > I'm afraid you've completely misinterpreted my posting. I did *not* say that > fast hardware justifies bad algorithms. I said that we shouldn't have to > write bizzare code that exploits the peculiarities of a particular machine. Nobody is saying you should. You're attacking a straw man, here. Just as you are with your division of the world into 68030 class processors and microcontrollers. The vast majority of computers out there are in the gap between the two. People aren't saying you shouldn't use time-efficient but space-wasteful algorithms when time is critical and space isn't. The problem is that there are systems out there, like X, that are fundamentally flawed. Putting the code to handle expose events into an application program makes about as much sense as putting erase and kill handling into "cat". This means that every program on the system has its own slightly different version of what is basically O/S code. Why? Because when X was first designed, they couldn't afford to put much memory in the display servers. Talk about bizzarre code to deal with the peculiarities of a particular machine. And this particular design decision... which might have made sense at one point in time... is now being cast in concrete. Wonderful. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? @FIN Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.