Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!hybrid!torag!utdoe!generic!pnet91!ericmcg
From: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: RISC systems
Message-ID: <813@generic.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jun 91 00:45:03 GMT
Sender: root@generic.UUCP
Organization: People-Net [pnet91], Etobicoke, ON
Lines: 28

>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

Two years ago now I finished a port of a C64 program to the Apple II. Not only
was it smaller than the original BASIC program and much faster, it also had
fewer bugs and could run from a network (although files had to be saved to
S6,D1  :(  ). A friend did the IBM port. It fit in 256k, but just bearly and
he had to use a couple overlays for printing and saving. Iwas written in
TurboC and it was just as fast as my Apple II version, of course mine was
running on a 1MHz IIe and his was running on a 4.77MHz XT with 10 times the
memory. The only thing better was the Graphics since he took advantage of VGA.

Ithink you will find that shipping complete product is more important than
shipping late product. This is the big advantage of compilers.

UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg
INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com