Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!madd
From: madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Message-ID: <30787@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 7 May 89 20:26:27 GMT
References: <7632@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <256@jwt.UUCP> <2496@bucsb.UUCP> <274@tree.UUCP>
Reply-To: madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost)
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: Software Tool & Die
Lines: 52

In article <274@tree.UUCP> stever@tree.UUCP (Steve Rudek) writes:
|This is *Microsoft*,
|people: You know--the company which markets perhaps the best optimized 
|C compiler in the world.

This is very arguable.  It isn't even the best optimizing C compiler
for MS-DOS, much less the best in the world.  The MIPS C compiler
might very well be the best (it consistently makes tighter code than
people whose job it is to make tight code), but of course that's not
the same environment.  There are a variety of other compilers which
produce better code than MSC, although few under MS-DOS given its
memory constraints.

|And the efficiency of UNIX on the 386 is
|almost certainly going to look rather sickly when compared to a mature
|version of 386 OS/2.

That depends on what you're looking for.  The 80386 has been out for a
pretty long time, yet OS/2 doesn't run there yet.  IBM has already
built prototypes of 80486 machines (an 80486-equipped model 70 was
said to have "twice" the performance of the normal model at the same
clock rate).  When will OS/2 run native on the '486?  UNIX will be
running native before most people can get their hands on a
'486-equipped machine.  This lag is very detrimental.

|sorrows me that there is this tradeoff.  But I'll repeat:  Portability IS the
|enemy of excellence.

You are wrong.  A properly written portable program is usually easier
to maintain and debug than a non-portable one.  It may not be quite as
fast, but it is my opinion that high reliability is better for the
customer than optimum speed.  What difference does it make that your
program runs 20% faster if it breaks twice as often or doesn't
necessarily get the right answer?

To the developer, a portable program results in a much wider market, a
big win.  To the customer, a portable program means that it's more
likely to be supported on newer, faster hardware than a nonportable
one (eg OS/2 versus UNIX).  To the programmer, a portable program
probably means modularity, allowing you to snap in replacement code
which is better, stronger, faster (and perhaps takes advantage of
particular hardware) without breaking the application.

It used to be the case where hardware was so expensive that you tried
VERY hard to get 100% utilization.  Hardware costs are so much lower,
and performance so much higher, that it makes more sense to focus your
attention on other matters (such as interface and portability) now.
As hardware continues to improve, I believe you'll see this trend
continue.

jim frost
madd@bu-it.bu.edu