Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!bucsb!crewman
From: crewman@bucsb.UUCP (JJS)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Message-ID: <2496@bucsb.UUCP>
Date: 25 Apr 89 22:49:00 GMT
References: <7632@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <256@jwt.UUCP> <7697@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <268@tree.UUCP> <9286@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <631@eecea.eece.ksu.edu>
Reply-To: crewman@bucsb.bu.edu
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 35

In article <631@eecea.eece.ksu.edu> (Terry Hull) writes:
>
>In article <9286@watcgl.waterloo.edu> (Stefan M. Vorkoetter) writes:
>>
>>In article <268@tree.UUCP> (Steve Rudek) writes:
>>>
>>>Portability is the enemy of excellence.
>>>
>>
>>Bull!
>
>I agree.  I do not think that protability is the enemy of excellence.
>On the other hand, writing inefficient code in a high-level language
>will not produce a good spreadsheet to run on an 8088.  You might have
>a shot at getting an acceptable product if you did some careful
>analysis of the program and optimized appropriate sections.  You may
>need to write a routine in assembly, or you may just need to change
>the algorighm.  
>

I think that whether or not portability prevents excellent software
depends heavily on the state of technology.  It used to be that the
hardware was a crippling bottleneck; there was NO WAY to write portable
software for machines like the Apple II and other such 8-bitters.  We
have reached a point where hardware limitations are ALMOST not an issue.
I stress ALMOST with modern Unix workstations in mind, like the Suns,
Apollos, and HP's, on which fairly portable X-Window programs are
still just a bit too slow.  But as soon as hardware is no longer a limiting
factor, and the real bottleneck is the software, portability will no
longer be any kind of obstacle.  I believe this will be true in at most
a decade.

	Just an opinion.
		-- JJS
		[still working on that .signature]