Nick Sabalausky Wrote: > "Just Visiting" <nos...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:hbdk23$2qo...@digitalmars.com... > > > > They usually > > judge from the standpoint of their own momentary CPU > > performance requirements. > > I can say exactly the same about people who defend setting their minimum > system specs higher than they need to be. As soon as most developers get > their hands on a new piece of hardware, all of a sudden they think no one > else should be using anything less, no matter how useful or widespread the > lower-end stuff may still be. And that's been going on for ages as well. >
Not sure what you are talking about. I get paid for improving responsiveness of programs - sometimes by using assembly language if deemed necessary. I do not consult anybody what hardware they should be using, as long as it remains compatible with my software. > > If I'd use your comments during my next business meeting > > we'd all have a good laugh. But I won't because I'll give > > you the chance to think this over: > > I couldn't care less what a bunch of suits think about my comments. If they > even exist...this sudden grab for professionalism seems quite contrived > considering the arrogance of your original post: > > "Therefore 32-bit compilers are just wasting my time," Arrogance? Does it irk you that much if someone dumps a 32-bit compiler in order to enjoy an impressive speed increase without substantial changes to the software? > Take a minute to think first the next time you want to jump in and tell a > group of people that their compiler is wasting your time. Sounds almost like I have offended D's lead developer. Sorry 'bout that. But you are absolutely right. 32-bit compilers - not just DmD - are wasting my time. For approximately equal results I'd have to add either assembly language to time critical sections of my 32-bit code, or just use a 64-bit compiler with moderate adaptations. > > it was the guy who is tweaking software, so a bunch of > > computers can survive their replacement by a year or two. > > > > That's exactly my point. There are plenty of 32-bit systems out there that > are perfectly useful, but then people like you go around waving a "32-bit is > antique, support for it is useless" flag. And now you suddenly turn around > and try to defend your disregard for an older piece of hardware...for the > sake of hardware longevity? What? I won't deny that for certain people 32-bit systems are still perfectly useful. Just my clients do not share this view for a series of good reasons. Even their older systems tend to be 64-bit nowadays. Migration towards 64-bit OSes is under way. There is still 32-bit compatibility if needed. At the same time certain programs will perform drastically better when compiled to 64-bit. Replacement thus can be postponed which is usually the best way to keep CFOs happy.