🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2275@ux.acs.umn.edu> dhoyt@vw.acs.umn.edu writes:
>In article <204@xstor.UUCP>, iverson@xstor.UUCP (Tim Iverson) writes...
>>[no std => not portable (usability-wise)]
>
>[std => not portable (speed-wise)]
>
>  The ONLY time that there is a real need for the programmer to understand
>the underlying structure layout is when the programmer is dealing device
>drivers and whatnot.  The need to save memory (aka 640k) is better addressed
>by a make-structures-very-tight switch on the compiler.

Actually, 90% of what I write has to interface with with the real world, so
I consider the "works" option to be far more important than the "speed"
option; it's highly annoying to have to tune a program's structures every
time I switch compilers, simply because every vender tries to be different.

For strange machines that have such costly restrictions on alignment, such
as the Cray, I would mind less having to do a little work to bring the speed
up than I would mind having to work to make it go at all (i.e. *first* turn
the key, *then* step on the gas).

Tell me, which is more important to your management: "it works", or "when
it works, it'll be fast"?

>david paul hoyt | dhoyt@vx.acs.umn.edu | dhoyt@umnacvx.bitnet                

- Tim Iverson
  iverson!uunet!xstor