Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!att!whuts!whutt!mls From: mls@whutt.UUCP (Michael Siemon) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: LSC 3.0 Summary: a thought Message-ID: <3777@whutt.UUCP> Date: 17 Aug 88 00:40:59 GMT References: <418@metasoft.UUCP> <5125@husc6.harvard.edu> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 22 In article <5125@husc6.harvard.edu>, singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) writes: > No, and there's no good reason for them to do so. Backgroun > compilation is such a CPU-intensive task that it would slow down all of > the foreground tasks, and the foreground tasks will slow down compilation, > particularly if they don't give sufficient time via correct use of > WaitNextEvent. Rich, A thought for you to consider, and carry back to your employers, is that some of us work in a mode where we alternate a "make" and editing -- either of more program work or just the diversion of writing to the net. And in these cases the foreground activity really is a near constant NO-OP rather than any "real" CPU usage. I have been pleased by what I have seen so far of LSC 3.0 (yet another happy customer :-)); I can only hope that it will continue as a product the MAC community can be proud of. -- Michael L. Siemon contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories att!mhuxu!mls standard disclaimer