melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.195257.3375@kessner.denver.co.us> david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes:
Ahem! Wouden't it be more correct to say:
"ALWAYS use the highest language available that can get the job done
efficently"
What do you mean by efficently? How about efficient as in "does the
job effectively w/o causing the user to wait an inordinate amount of
time?"
I remember a certain co-worker that used a high level language/compiler
when writing a paper eject program (all it did was send a form feed to the
printer). The executable file was 150K!
Yeah, so what. We just bought 16MB of RAM for our computer and the
total cost was $640. What high-level language/compiler are you
talking about anyway? How long did it take your co-worker to write
the program? At what hourly wage does it become cheaper to buy the
extra RAM?
I then re-wrote it in C, and made it a whole lot more functional/flexable.
My executable was less than 10K.
How long did it take you? Your program was of course much faster too?
Now, both programs did the job. However, the lower level language did it
better...
No, you did the better job writing the program. Was there some reason
that the functionality couldn't have been added to the other program?
If you tell me that you're running MS DOS, I'm going to tell you to
quit playin with toy operating systems. I get tired of running out of
memory on the Model 70 at work with 6MB of RAM just because people
won't give up DOS. There is a price to pay for this stupidity. It's
known as time and money. But hey, I get paid by the hour :-).
-Mikes8922967@ipc09.tmc.edu (Murray John GILBERT) (05/20/91)
that program that was 150K to just do a linefeed on a printer Odds on that it was fortran, the tiniest programs we do here on the SUN IPCs in fortran 77 are that size. ( little choice as far as language goes - we more or less have to use fortran for the Numeric Analysis course I'm doing) adios, Murray