🚀 go-pugleaf

Arguing this in this group is probably like preaching 
to the converted but ...  I also have some disagreements
with Mike Caplinger's comparison.

I have been looking (in a cursory fashion) at the new Sun's
(externally visible software mostly), and I must say they have
improved considerabley in the past 2 years (of course, that was
pretty easy to do as they were not much of a machine 2 years
ago).  Still a ways to go in the windowing dept ...

A bit over 2 years ago we carefully evaluated 4 different workstations
(Apollo, Sun, HP-9000 and Orcatech (a local firm)).  It was the easiest thing
in the world to reach a decision -- after listing our requirements in order of
priority and ranking each station within each, it was clear that the Apollos
were miles ahead (at that time).  A part of that comparison  (where 4 is
best, 0 is no good at all) was (in 1983):
                                                          Apollo Sun   Orc   HP
Virtual memory/large unsegmented address space              3     0     0    4
Constraint-free programming                                 4     3     0    4
Source-level program debugger                               4     0     0    0
Unix-like operating system and programming environment      4     4     4    4
Functioning high-speed network -- distributed file system   4     2     2    2
Overlapping windows on high-speed bit-mapped display        4     1     0    0
Advanced user interface (process control, mice, etc.)       4     2     0    0
Advanced software development environment                   4     3     2    3
Good performance in software development (compiling, etc.)  4     2     2    3
Good performance in analysis                                3     2     2    4
High resolution graphics (750x1000) or higher               3     3     4    3

Note that we do not believe in depending on Unix for portability of code we
develop, but we did want the 3 or 4 good ideas of Unix -- so Unix itself is 
further down the list.

Sun would now rank higher on many of those attributes, probably 1, 3, & 5.
Their windowing system is not up to scratch, and I know realize that is even
more important than we originally though -- now I would move that close to 
the head of the list.  And, in contrast to Mike's statement, I think the
user interface on the Apollo is *MUCH* better than the Sun:
      - special keys for often used functions:
           creating new processes, getting help, editing/viewing files
           text editing fuctions, etc.
      - the fact that the editor is ALWAYS available, no matter where
        you type (though it would be nicer if it were more EMACS-like).
       
Obviously, our needs are not the typical Computing Science stuff -- we do 
engineering, from traditional numerical simulation to applications of
techniques from AI.  We have no hangup about writing code in Fortran, but
we want lots of applications programs, and most of those already
written are in Fortran.  

We have ported or written close to 1,000,000 lines  (yes, six zeros) of 
code - 75% Fortran, 20% C, 5% Pascal.  These range from traditional huge FEM
programs, to solids modellers, to advanced messaging systems, to Prolog and APL 
interpreters.  And we don't have many people doing it.  (we also do a fair bit 
of development in Lisp (PSL)).

I am convinced we could not have been nearly as productive with *any* other
machine.  The compilers are good, the debugger is superb (and when you
port large Fortran programs, you spend a lot of time in the debugger), and
the standard editor is reasonable.

As far as I am concerned, there is still a large (but narrower) gap between
the machines, in Apollo's favour  -- if I had to make the decision again it 
would be even easier.  

Mike's original comparison, looking at the narrower view of coding in C 
for Unix, and nothing else, (which he essentially stated) shows the
Suns to be relatively much better.  But I do not believe that holds at
all when you want general purpose machines.