Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!julian!uwovax!16012_3045
From: 16012_3045@uwovax.uwo.ca (Paul Gomme)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: ZOO
Message-ID: <2282@uwovax.uwo.ca>
Date: 7 Jun 89 16:04:32 GMT
References: <999@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> <120800003@silver> <7525@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Lines: 31
Organisation: Department of Economics, UWO, London, Ontario, Canada

In article <7525@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, mdlawler@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Mike Lawler) writes:
>  I really don't
> understand why the human race is so relucant to change.  People
> usually look at new products like this:  I don't care if the new
> product is better because I'm used to what I'm using.
        [long diatribe deleted]

Would you start using word processor ABC if it were 5% better than the word
processor which you already know and love?  I think not.  Each individual must
make his/her own evaluation as to the costs and benefits of a change. 
Personally, I don't see enough benefits to changing to ZOO.

> Arc is not as portable as zoo.

This _might_ be right.  However, I'd like to see evidence supporting this
statement.  Also, ZOO under VAX/VMS is almost worthless.  I have to "bilf" the
file when I transfer between VAX/VMS and any other system (eg. MS-DOS).  I know
that there are problems with VAX C.  But I have two utilities which deal with
ARC files under VMS.  Also, ZOO tends to mess up severely CR/LF combinations.

> Finally for the people that complain that zoo is too slow if your
> so worried about it then write highly optimized assembler routines
> for your prefered machine and send them to Rahul.

This has got to be the worst argument of the lot.  There are already utilities
which work and are acceptably fast in dealing with ARC files.  Why do you
expect someone to run out and rewrite a bunch of code when there's a tool which
already works?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gomme        Bitnet:  gomme@uwovax.bitnet      ARPA:    gomme@uwo.ca