Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:15198 comp.unix.wizards:13848
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!ulysses!cjc
From: cjc@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Chris Calabrese[mav])
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: printf, data presentation
Summary: Which AT&T curses?
Message-ID: <11064@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 4 Jan 89 15:23:28 GMT
References: <19@xenlink.UUCP> <7328@chinet.chi.il.us> <144@bms-at.UUCP> <79@attibr.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 28

In article <79@attibr.UUCP>, vch@attibr.UUCP (Vincent C. Hatem) writes:
> In article <144@bms-at.UUCP>, stuart@bms-at.UUCP (Stuart Gathman) writes:
> } :
> } and the works.  AT&T curses is so buggy, we had no choice but to
> } replace it.  The worst curses performance problem is that every character
> } requires a function call(s).  A low level display string function does 
> } wonders.  Our screen programs went from 100K with AT&T curses to
> } 30K with BMS curses.  (NOTE, any PD curses is better than AT&T.)
> 
> Come, come now... AT&T didn't invent it - they stole it from Berkley.

Partially true.  While curses was a Berkeley invention, it has been
radically modified at AT&T, including the development of terminfo,
the addition various sub-window routines, support for color, and
amazing speed increases.  The question is, are you comparing an
outdated AT&T version of curses (say sVr2) to a new release of
curses from another company.  Why not try getting a hold of the
sVr3.2 curses?

I'm not trying to be pro-AT&T (I don't even work for them, I'm
a contractor), I just think their _current_ product is good, and
that you're possibly not referring to it.

Besides, who uses a character terminal any more :-) :-) :-) :-)
-- 
	Christopher J. Calabrese
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	att!ulysses!cjc		cjc@ulysses.att.com