Article View: comp.sys.mac
Article #30333Re: Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long)
From: Rich Siegel
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1988 19:24
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1988 19:24
16 lines
1118 bytes
1118 bytes
In article <455@poseidon.UUCP> ech@poseidon.UUCP (Edward C Horvath) writes: >Plenty fast? Perhaps. Fast enough? As fast as it COULD be? Not even close. Suppose you read my post again? I DID NOT say that the current scheme is the fastest; it is, however, faster than using SANE. >Try running some benchmarks. Shall we race my inline code against your >libraries for, say, a month's salary? If you want. If you win, you lose.;-) To repeat: we KNOW that it's a deficiency; there just wasn't enough time to get all the features in, and this one didn't make it. There will be future versions of LightspeedC, after all... --Rich
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4984@husc6.harvard.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!husc6!endor!singerReferences:
<4971@husc6.harvard.edu> <455@poseidon.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!husc6!endor!singer From: singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long) Message-ID: <4984@husc6.harvard.edu> Date: 19 Jul 88 19:24:45 GMT References: <4971@husc6.harvard.edu> <455@poseidon.UUCP> Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Reply-To: singer@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) Organization: Symantec/THINK Technologies, Bedford, MA Lines: 16