On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 01:45:59AM +0000, Sam wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > > Perhaps you haven't noticed the time() output, right there in the middle
> > > of my post.
> >
> > I did. It's way too small to indicate anything but noise.
> >
> > On Solaris an empty program issues some 19 system calls including
> > 2 opens. A write() of 1 byte surely gets lost in the noise.
...
> It's unfortunate to see that the "wasteful, bloated, inefficient code is
> OK, as long as you have a fast CPU" mantra being adopted by anyone else
> other than Microsoft.
>
> I recall that the original excuse for this absurd logic was that it's too
> gosh darn difficult to properly check the return value from a
> multicharacter write() call.
>
> My heart bleeds for you.
Why would that be? I never made an opinion one way of the other on the
matter. My point was merely that you should get your methodology in order
before using it to prove a point. Getting your methodology (and your
attributions) wrong does you a disservice.
Regards.
