🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <En$_--@cs.psu.edu>, schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott E. Schwartz) writes:
>In article <00405@sarek.UUCP> gsarff@sarek.UUCP (Gary Sarff) writes:
>>There seem to be two different camps here.  I have seen numerous postings in
>>this group saying "architecture/machine xxx (sparc,mips,...) will do better,
>>look at all the applications/software base we have for the xxx architecture."
>>The poster above, says porting is nothing more than recompiling.  We can't
>>have it both ways.
>
>Don't take my word for it, look at recent history.  Three years ago a
>Sun4 was just a wet dream.  Now SPARC is Sun's flagship architecture.
>If porting software was that serious a problem we'd know it.  Ditto for
>MIPS, ibm RT, Moto 88K, etc, of course.  Granted, the key to all this
>is coding applications in a high level language and for a portable OS.
>

How did _I_ get involved in this?  I was merely pointing out the different
opinions of two groups here, and now this. 8-)  (I have also received email
from a person who also seems to have misunderstood my post.)  All I was
saying was that _IF_ one says that porting is easy, _THEN_ one may not
logically say that any benefit accrues to any particular architecture because
of the software that is available on a platform using that architecture.  I
have known people to use software availabilty argument to show the
superiority of one machine over another.  I was not speaking to the point of
the ease or difficulty of porting software.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       I _DON'T_ live for the leap!