Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!quintus!sun!decwrl!pyramid!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why you should use puts(3) when you don't need printf(3)
Message-ID: <2770@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: 17 Mar 88 15:18:31 GMT
References: <2304@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Ashton-Tate Corporation, East Hartford Development Center
Lines: 13

In article <2304@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> rwl@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
>OK -- I'm not saying that using *printf where *puts is appropriate is going to
>break the bank.  But it's good practice to only use what you need; anything
>else is just lazy programming.

There is a time and a place for careful programming to maximize speed.  And
there is a time and a place for lazy programming.  For code which is only
going to be run a few times, or code whose execution time is dominated by
physical I/O time (or user response time), lazy programming is the way to go.
-- 

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Ashton-Tate          52 Oakland Ave North         E. Hartford, CT 06108