Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:18370 comp.sys.mac.programmer:1655
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!husc6!endor!singer
From: singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long)
Message-ID: <4984@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 19 Jul 88 19:24:45 GMT
References: <4971@husc6.harvard.edu> <455@poseidon.UUCP>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: singer@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Organization: Symantec/THINK Technologies, Bedford, MA
Lines: 16

In article <455@poseidon.UUCP> ech@poseidon.UUCP (Edward C Horvath) writes:
>Plenty fast?  Perhaps.  Fast enough?  As fast as it COULD be?  Not even close.

	Suppose you read my post again? I DID NOT say that the current scheme
is the fastest; it is, however, faster than using SANE. 

>Try running some benchmarks.  Shall we race my inline code against your
>libraries for, say, a month's salary?

	If you want. If you win, you lose.;-)

To repeat: we KNOW that it's a deficiency; there just wasn't enough time
to get all the features in, and this one didn't make it. There will be
future versions of LightspeedC, after all...

		--Rich