Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!ucsd!nosc!crash!pnet01!pro-sol.cts.com!edwatkeys
From: edwatkeys@pro-sol.cts.com (Ed Watkeys)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: RISC systems
Message-ID: <1991Jun3.015606.753@crash.cts.com>
Date: 3 Jun 91 01:56:06 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Lines: 19

In-Reply-To: message from ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com

If I recall, I think I said something like RISC and CISC are
essentially "brand names" these days...  While I have a big 128K, 8MB has
become the minimum for "real" applications.  When it comes down to it, I
think that programmers' laziness is a far greater problem than compiler or
CPU inefficiency.  For instance, I just finished a port of an MS-DOS
program to ProDOS: the basis for the port was written in QuickBASIC and
took 150K, and my ML version for any 64K IIe or later to SEVEN disk blocks,
which is about $c00 bytes (it's AF4 bytes, actually...)  And besides the
space, it's actually FASTER!  This show two things in my mind: for most
people, a 128K IIe would be fine, and programmers are lazy, especially when
they have "good" compilers...  

Ed Watkeys III

Internet: edwatkeys@pro-sol.cts.com  ProLine:  edwatkeys@pro-sol
UUCP:     crash!pro-sol!edwatkeys    ARPA:     crash!pro-sol!edwatkeys@nosc.mil
BitNET:   edwatkeys%pro-sol.cts.com@nosc.mil