🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40ua6f$j5e@bug.rahul.net>, Bill Moyer <ttk@rahul.net> writes:
|> In article <40rvu2$erb@news1.deltanet.com>,  <xenon@deltanet.com> wrote:

|> >rampson@ave050.ve.ford.com (Chris"Big-Kahuna"Rampson) wrote:

|> >>I am of the opinion that the smaller the OS, the easier it is to
|> >>understand.  This makes Linux "harder" to understand.

|> >I've preserved your comments at the cost of bandwidth because it is a
|> >good post. In answer to it: You are correct. 

|> Given that:
|>   1)  Linux is smaller than OS/2, 
|>   2)  OS/2 is easier to understand than Linux,
|>   3)  A smaller OS is easier to understand,
|> A contradiction arises.  
|> At least one of these statements must be false.

Point 3 is false.  Exhibit A: the obfuscated C contest.  Exhibit B:
the BASIC one-liner and two-liner contests from some magazines in the
70's and early 80's. 

The number of different concepts supported by a program, and the
number of bytes required to implement those concepts are not
necessarily related.

Chris
-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   ChrisCWood@aol.com