Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Computer Architecture question -- Daye Haynie Message-ID: <1991May20.114932.3991@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 20 May 91 11:49:32 GMT References: <1991May19.123429.19440@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991May19.195257.3375@kessner.denver.co.us> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 23 I said: In article <1991May19.195257.3375@kessner.denver.co.us> david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes: > Ahem! Wouden't it be more correct to say: > "ALWAYS use the highest language available that can get the job done > efficently" No. Efficiency may be part of getting the job done. > I remember a certain co-worker that used a high level language/compiler > when writing a paper eject program (all it did was send a form feed to the > printer). The executable file was 150K! Sounds like he didn't use the highest level language available. What was the platform? Unless it was a Macintosh the highest level language available was the shell/CLI/COMMAND.COM/DCL/JCL/whatever you call the command/batch file interpreter. And that's what he should have used. If it was a Mac, I guess you could have done something in Hypercard. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .