Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!ima!mirror!xanth!kent From: kent@xanth.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: String Processing Instruction Message-ID: <771@xanth.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Apr-87 03:14:58 EST Article-I.D.: xanth.771 Posted: Wed Apr 1 03:14:58 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 3-Apr-87 06:48:16 EST References: <15292@amdcad.UUCP> <978@ames.UUCP> <909@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM> Reply-To: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) Distribution: na Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va. Lines: 30 Keywords: programming costs byte software in word system Summary: Your posting argues against your views In article <15325@amdcad.UUCP> bcase@amdcad.UUCP (Brian Case) writes: >Well, this is so damn long that I'll just post strcpy. Brian, I almost choked when I saw your code, right after seeing the same job done in a handful of lines in a posting that hit here a few articles earlier. You couldn't have written a more cogent argument for byte level addressing in any hardware which does text processing if it had been your intent. Programmers are _the_most_expensive_part_ of the total lifecycle (including execution) costs of all but the most widely distributed, embedded code. Who could afford to pay the staff to write code ten or fifteen times as long (I didn't count) to do the same job in a comparable time. The discussion so far has brought out quite a lot of evidence that applications level programmers aren't using the library string routines much, yet Unix stream files, and the masses of editors, word processors, post processors compiler parsers and so on in use testify that the job is being done. The implication is that the application programmers are writing the string software themselves, to suite the particular case at hand. I sure don't want to pay them to write code like that you showed, at the application level, to replace while (*s1++ = *s2++); Yeeks! You've talked _me_ into byte instructions and byte addressing. Comments? Kent. (kent@xanth.UUCP)