Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Knuth   (was Re: Assembly language
Message-ID: <94@splut.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Aug-87 19:21:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: splut.94
Posted: Tue Aug 25 19:21:51 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Aug-87 08:58:01 EDT
References: <1668@ho95e.ATT.COM> <3240002@nucsrl.UUCP>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 24
Summary: That's not all, though...

In article <3240002@nucsrl.UUCP>, gore@nucsrl.UUCP (Jacob Gore) writes:
) OK, let's accept the implication that C is the language of the "proletariat",
) and let's list a few systems that are in the "peasants"' price range:
) 
) 	1.  IBM-PC	2.  Macintosh	3.  Amiga	4.  Atari-ST
) 
) For which of these was it necessary to rush to market with C compilers that
) generated programs that could only use a little more memory than the previous
) generation of machines provided?  For which of these do the C compilers now
) (several years later) come in sizes ("models") Small, Medium,
) Sort-of-Medium-but-Kind-of-Small, and Large (:-), the latter being easiest to
) use for programming, but the former having to be used to achieve satisfactory
) performance? 

Allow me to add one further rhetorical question:

Which of these was available for real people to do real work two to four
years earlier than any of the others?

-- 
Jay Maynard, K5ZC...>splut!< | uucp: hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay
"Don't ask ME about Unix...  | (or sun!housun!nuchat)       CI$: 71036,1603
I speak SNA!"                | internet: beats me         GEnie: JAYMAYNARD
The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.