Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!mit-eddie!killer!pollux!ti-csl!m2!holland From: holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: New Mac Rumours Message-ID: <70755@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> Date: 24 Feb 89 05:00:05 GMT References: <41a2364a.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu> Sender: news@ti-csl.csc.ti.com Reply-To: holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander) Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas Lines: 21 In article <41a2364a.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) writes: >Very good. I shall now give you another lesson in being condescending. But >remember... you shall never be as good as I am. The whole point of this >thread is that there is no value in doing speed comparisons, because you will >need all new applications to run under the new system. Therefore, you might >as well compare to DOS 3.3, because it doesn't support the same overhead. >I am anxiously awaiting the new rewrite, even if it breaks all, as long as it >is in an object oriented format. Yes, it is doubtful that they will do a >rewrite in Pascal, since the system is currently written in Assembly >language, and RISC chips are optimized for C. This is very interesting. I don't have the strongest background in hardware architecture, but, could you please explain how a processor could be optimized for a specific high level language? Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. hollander@ti.com The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.