Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsstat!oz
From: oz@utcsstat.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Re: About nuking newsgroups
Message-ID: <1966@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Jun-84 23:46:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1966
Posted: Wed Jun 13 23:46:46 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Jun-84 00:10:22 EDT
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 82

>>This is NOT VAXnet. This is NOT BSDnet. This is USENET. The software that
>>we publish needs to be portable so that it can reach the widest possible
>>audience. If it doesn't we are artificially crippling the network.
>
>So you will have us cripple our software instead?

	Chuq simply acknowledges the importance of portability. How is
	it that the effort that goes into producing a portable program
	is crippling ?? Are you sure you are using "C" ??

>
>>What you
>>are telling us to do is basically the same as suggesting that a person
>>write a program for the IBM PC but require that the PC have 512K instead of
>>128K so that you can do everything.
>
>I have bad news, Chuqui - most IBM PC software needs more than 128K to
>run in. Most of it will run in 256K, but I suspect that the 8086's crippled
>addressing modes have more to do with that than anything else.
>
	So what ? Given any amount of memory, there will always be a
	programmer out there to fill it up with an application that
	used to run on half as much memory before, without any significant
	improvements over anything. (Oh sure ! space vs. speed trade-off -
	only if you knew what needs to run faster !!!)

>>Anyone who honestly things they can ignored PDP's has no idea how many of
>>them are still out there. They also seem to ignore the trend to
>>workstations and smaller personal machines, not every one of which is going
>>to try to simulate vaxes. Massive addressing spaces is for the lazy
>>programmers who don't want to have to think about things like structure and
>>efficiency (both of which are sometimes amazingly lacking in usenet
>>software at times).
>>
>>Chuq
>
>I think you have that backwards. Those who insist that everything should
>run on 1970'ish hardware are ignoring the trend to personal workstations,
>most of which are based on the 68000. I don't know of *any* personal
>workstations based on machines with small address spaces; could you
>name some for me?
>

	GOD ! nobody says EVERYTHING should run on small-address-space
	computers. Do you think all the existing hardware will magically
	dissapear from the surface of this earth ?? How about
	MICRO PDP-11's and PRO-350's with System V or VENIX on them ??

	Surely, you are ready to tell us all about this NS or
	MC based micro with 5-meg memory that the next-door
	neighbor cabbie got !!



>As for structure and efficiency, some things just flat *will not* fit on
>a PDP-11. Examples upon request.
>
>
>	
>
	Some things will need to be re-written, not to fit them into
	PDP-11's but to get rid of hideous hacks, unelegant design
	principles (or lack thereof!) and silly "featurisms" that cost
	more than they are worth.. Magically, those things may end up
	40kb smaller !! 


	cheers for sensible software development !!


	OZ	(the wizard of something or another..)

	Real-life:	Ozan S. Yigit
			Dept. of Computer Science
			York University

	Electric:	decvax!utzoo!yetti!oz
			............!utcsstat!oz

	Ps: We do run well equipped VAXEN, but we are sensible
	    about it !!