🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <359@uthub.toronto.edu> koko@uthub.toronto.edu (M. Kokodyniak) writes:
>Besides, not everyone has access to programming
>tools needed for programming PAL's.

Sorry, I wasn't (perhaps I should have looked harder) cognizant of the
original poster's University location. The proliferation of different
parts and the difficulties in programming them is quite a problem with
no easy solution I can see.

>I don't understand why engineers and technical people always have to be
>so gung-ho about technology and insist that nothing short of the
>leading edge of technology is good enough for them.  I assume some
>humility and am quite content riding the falling edge of technology.

The design/manufacturing/marketing cycle is lengthy enough that if you
don't start slightly beyond the state of the art, you will be
antiquated when your product finally reaches the market. Isn't it
embarassing to offer a computer with say 64K bytes of RAM when
everyone else has 256K bytes, in the same space and for the same
price?

Also, a reputation for offering the best/fastest products is very
potent advertising.

>Besides, I am not that lazy that I would always insist on the rising
>edge just to save time and effort.  Furthermore, I appreciate that
>the falling edge can sometimes save me money.

The main question is, are you making just one or are you designing a
product? The design rules depend on this. I was speaking to people who
make from 10 to 10,000 of something. Other volumes call for different
methods.

-- 
 Paul Slansky: Those who believe that President Reagan had to have known about 
 secret fund diversions to the Contras are overlooking Reagan's hard-won
 reputation for knowing practically nothing.

 Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,hplabs,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com