Article View: fa.editor-p
Article #36small machines
From: ucbvaxeditor-people
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1981 22:45
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1981 22:45
17 lines
1190 bytes
1190 bytes
>From DLW@MIT-AI Sun Nov 1 22:35:58 1981 I stand by my points. (1) I don't belive that secondary storage is not a problem. Disks are slow, especially floppy disks. While for local operations (insertion and deletion), you don't need quick access to most of the file, there are other important operations (searches and replaces) for which you do. A search has no right being CPU bound; it takes longer to get a page of a file off of a disk than it does to search through it, in the current state of technology. Judging from the quality of MINCE commands and functionality, I have respect for the compentency of its authors, but its fatal flaw is that it spends too much time disking. Now you may assert that it is just "poorly implemented", but I won't belive it without more evidence. Do you know of any that are not poorly implemented? (2) I have never seen a micro with a programming environment that I consider half-decent. Your standards may not be the same as mine.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<anews.Aucbvax.4893>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!editor-peopleShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!editor-people From: ucbvax!editor-people Newsgroups: fa.editor-p Subject: small machines Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1981 22:45:07 +0000 Message-ID: <anews.Aucbvax.4893>