Aucbvax.4893
fa.editor-p
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!editor-people
Sun Nov 1 22:45:07 1981
small machines
>From DLW@MIT-AI Sun Nov 1 22:35:58 1981
I stand by my points.
(1) I don't belive that secondary storage is not a problem. Disks are
slow, especially floppy disks. While for local operations (insertion
and deletion), you don't need quick access to most of the file, there
are other important operations (searches and replaces) for which you do.
A search has no right being CPU bound; it takes longer to get a page of
a file off of a disk than it does to search through it, in the current
state of technology. Judging from the quality of MINCE commands and
functionality, I have respect for the compentency of its authors, but
its fatal flaw is that it spends too much time disking. Now you may
assert that it is just "poorly implemented", but I won't belive it
without more evidence. Do you know of any that are not poorly implemented?
(2) I have never seen a micro with a programming environment that I
consider half-decent. Your standards may not be the same as mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
