Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!rpi!pawl3.pawl.rpi.edu!fargo
From: fargo@pawl.rpi.edu (Irwin M. Fargo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Message-ID: <2333@rpi.edu>
Date: 29 Apr 89 05:49:43 GMT
References: <274@tree.UUCP> <635@eecea.eece.ksu.edu>
Sender: usenet@rpi.edu
Organization: Fargo HQ, Inc.
Lines: 25

In article <635@eecea.eece.ksu.edu> Terry Hull writes:
>In article <274@tree.UUCP> stever@tree.UUCP (Steve Rudek) writes:
>>
>>But I'll repeat:  Portability IS the
>>enemy of excellence.
>
>To quote another USENETTER, "Bull."

One way we might be able to clear things up here is if we change the phrase,
"Portability is the enemy of excellence" to "Portability is the enemy of
speed"  By making programs portable, you obviously have to make a compromise
in terms of speed.  C programs are NEVER going to run faster than Assembler
programs on the SAME machine.  I am all for portability, but fast portability.
In my opinion, as software techniques become more and more refined, we will
be able to create more powerful optimizing compilers for less money.  I can
envision a day (a day quite some time away) when a compiler will be able to
create compiled code that runs only marginally slower than the same Assembler
program.  If anything, I feel THAT is something we should shoot for.  If we
can reach that goal, then the trade-off between portability and speed will
become almost unnecessary.

Thank you and happy hunting!             Actually: Ethan M. Young
  ____ [> SB <]    "Travel IS life"      Internet: fargo@pawl.rpi.edu
 /__   -=>??<=-       - Irwin M. Fargo   Bitnet (??): usergac0@rpitsmts.bitnet
/   ARGO : 3000 years of regression from the year 4990