Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!ur-tut!sunybcs!ugfailau
From: ugfailau@sunybcs.uucp (Fai Lau)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why you should use puts(3) when you don't need printf(3)
Message-ID: <9466@sunybcs.UUCP>
Date: 21 Mar 88 01:50:12 GMT
References: <2304@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> <2770@mmintl.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@sunybcs.UUCP
Reply-To: ugfailau@sunybcs.UUCP (Fai Lau)
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 23

In article <2770@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>
>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.
>
	Agree. I still remember when I first learned BASIC, the
machine was SLOW, and the interpretor was SLOW. I was writing
a mini word processor (with BASIC!!!) for my data base program
I would put like ten statements in a line, substitute "real" characters
for CHR$(n) by using a memory editor to edit the codes (you cannot write
non-ascii characters with the key board, so you have to edit the memory,)
put a machine language subroutine in a string and put the string
in high memory, porking and peeking video memory to speed up output,
etc, etc, every trick in the book.
	With today's 12MHz/math board PCs I think I'll stop slaving
myself.

Fai Lau
SUNY at Buffalo (The Arctic Wonderland)
UUCP: ..{mit-ems|watmath|rocksanne}!sunybcs!ugfailau
BI: ugfailau@sunybcs