Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!pioneer!eugene
From: eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Dusty decks (Please move discussion to comp.lang.fortran)
Message-ID: <6600@ames.arpa>
Date: 29 Mar 88 02:59:26 GMT
References: <8803282017.AA04296@decwrl.dec.com>
Sender: usenet@ames.arpa
Reply-To: eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya)
Followup-To: comp.lang.fortran
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 21

I had some discussion with Marty about his interesting posting of
this morning.  He noted he forgot to put comp.lang.fortran as
the real target of his posting.  This discussion doesn't directly
belong in comp.arch.  The follow-up line has comp.lang.fortran in it
(as other discussions from wizards are overflowing).  [You people
are getting lazy again.]

We can get this moving over to comp.lang.fortran:  I propose (using
a Mike O'Dell solution) that all Fortran compilers be written to
intentionally generate bad code, then all other language compilers
can generate better code than it (C, Pascal, even LISP ;-), then Fortran's
poor performance can be used as a basis to get users to try other languages.
How's that for a modest proposal?  ;-)  The follow-up software had
better work, or Erik Fair is going to get a wet noodle.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene