🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9602051257.AA29046@dxmint.cern.ch>, Dan Pop
<danpop@mail.cern.ch> wrote:

    kjfair@midway.uchicago.edu (Kenneth Jason Fair) writes:
    
    >Maybe you're interested in running infinite loop programs like that on
    >your machine, but I can't think of a single instance where I've needed
    >to.  I'm interested in using software that actually has a point.
    
    There is plenty of software that has a point, yet it's very similar to the
    infinite loop program, except that: 1) it does some computation inside
    the loop and 2) it eventually exits the loop.  Such programs can run for
    hours, days, weeks or months before exiting the loop.  During this time,
    the Mac is not available to any other applications.
    
    A scientist or engineer who wants to run his programs, developed on other
    systems, on his Mac, via a simple compilation (they were written in
    portable C, after all) is in the situation of not being able to use the Mac
    for any other purposes.  Or to learn the misteries of MacOS, on which he
    doesn't have any interest, because he's not a Mac programmer, he's only a
    Mac user.
    
    Dan
    -- 
    Dan Pop
    CERN, CN Division
    Email: danpop@mail.cern.ch 
    Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

Others have posted that at least some Mac compilers will automatically
insert calls to the event loop. However, you are right: this is the major
(and perhaps only) draw back to CMT vs. PMT. And, as stated earlier, this
impacts the programmer, not the user. 

BTW, what are 'misteries'? If the the MacOS has misteries, then I like
misteries. Maybe we should start a thread comparing the misteries of MacOS
vs. the mysteries of unix.

Tom