Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:18559 comp.sys.mac.programmer:1726
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!att!ihnp4!poseidon!ech
From: ech@poseidon.UUCP (Edward C Horvath)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Re: Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long)
Message-ID: <458@poseidon.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jul 88 17:14:46 GMT
References: <4984@husc6.harvard.edu>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
Lines: 20

> Xref: poseidon comp.sys.mac:18934 comp.sys.mac.programmer:1520

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

> 		--Rich

The original article asked, "why no inline '881?' and your response said,
"because you don't need it."

Rich, I LIKE the product.  But your attitude about LSC has increasingly
been one of "anything left out is not important," and it is that attitude
which I object to.

When people ask for things that were left out, TELL YOUR DEVELOPERS.  There
is never enough time to do everything, but the feedback YOU provide
the developers helps them build the product features the customers
most want to see.

=Ned=