🚀 go-pugleaf

   In article <119@pande.UUCP> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM () writes:
 >In article <1425@nunki.usc.edu> rjung@sal6.usc.edu (Robert  allen Jung) writes:
 >>>  I was looking through one of the Amiga rags he other day and - surprise -
 >>>Soft Logik is doing a PP for the Amiga. Isn't that strange?
 >>
 >>  Nope. Quality software eventually gets translated for lesser machines. B-)
 >
 >Nope. If you talk to the author you will discover that PP was written
 >for the ST first because ``If we could make it work on that pig, we
 >could make it work on anything.''
 >
 >                      I'm only in this for the mummy.
 >richard@gryphon.CTS.COM                  {well connected site}!gryphon!richard
   
This is the kind of statement which, on the face of it, appears very,
very difficult to take seriously.   If the author of PP really thinks
the ST is a dog (er, sorry, I mean a pig), it would be stupid wasting
time trying to develop software for it just to prove it can be done.

This is a little like the story I read years ago about the track coach
who had his runners run with weights on during practice on the theory that
running without them in the real meet would help them run faster.
In the actual track meet, his runners did poorly; the strategy of runninng with
weights proved to have no relevance to running faster without them.  By
the same token, if you want to develop programs on system A, spending
time working on system B (or system ST :-) would make little sense.

The only reason a serious programmer (i.e., one who is a professional)
would have to develop a massive program on a specific system would be to
sell that program to users of the system and make money.  You don't
spend months and months working with no hope of return on effort unless
you are a dilettante.

I suspect that if PP's author really did say this, and we only have
unsubstantiated heresay evidence to that effect, it was meant as a joke.
Which brings me to my final comment; why can't we have more informative
disucssions of programs such as PP instead of the foolish remark which
prompted this response?

Well, I was just asking!

Bill

-------  who represents only himself in his Usenet postings  ----------