Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: If the GS meant business...
Message-ID: <8256@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 29 Jul 88 03:11:46 GMT
References: <8807131148.aa01449@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> <3214@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <3214@crash.cts.com> maddie@crash.CTS.COM (Tom Schenck) writes:
>I have never really like the //gs OR the Mac (ANY of them) for any serious
>programming work. Why? Because everything you do, even if you write it in
>straight machine code, goes through an intepreter. The OS on the //gs and the
>mac has just too much overhead, and is to high-level for me to ever consider
>it as a serious programming machine.

Funny how in all these newsgroups, the people who say they don't
like {whatever the subject of the newsgroup is} give reasons that
don't make any sense.  The IIGS emphatically does not run machine
code "through an interpreter", and its OS imposes no overhead on
processes that don't make calls to it (primarily, for disk access).