Re: Re: Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long)

Article View: comp.sys.mac

Article #30502

#30502

From: Edward C Horvath
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1988 17:14

20 lines
1128 bytes

> Xref: poseidon comp.sys.mac:18934 comp.sys.mac.programmer:1520

> 	Suppose you read my post again? I DID NOT say that the current scheme
> is the fastest; it is, however, faster than using SANE. 

> 		--Rich

The original article asked, "why no inline '881?' and your response said,
"because you don't need it."

Rich, I LIKE the product.  But your attitude about LSC has increasingly
been one of "anything left out is not important," and it is that attitude
which I object to.

When people ask for things that were left out, TELL YOUR DEVELOPERS.  There
is never enough time to do everything, but the feedback YOU provide
the developers helps them build the product features the customers
most want to see.

=Ned=

Technical Details

Message-ID: <458@poseidon.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!att!ihnp4!poseidon!ech

References: <4984@husc6.harvard.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!att!ihnp4!poseidon!ech
From: ech@poseidon.UUCP (Edward C Horvath)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Re: Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long)
Message-ID: <458@poseidon.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jul 88 17:14:46 GMT
References: <4984@husc6.harvard.edu>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft, NJ
Lines: 20

Reply to Parent Message