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