Re: Code quality

drw@riesz.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:24:26 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: Code quality tchannon@black.demon.co.uk (1993-01-07)
Re: Code quality prener@watson.ibm.com (1993-01-07)
Re: Code quality ssimmons@convex.com (1993-01-07)
Re: Code quality bill@amber.csd.harris.com (1993-01-07)
Re: Code quality tm@netcom.com (1993-01-07)
Re: Code quality grover@brahmand.Eng.Sun.COM (1993-01-07)
Re: Code quality drw@riesz.mit.edu (1993-01-08)
Re: Code quality polstra!jdp@uunet.UU.NET (1993-01-12)
Re: Code quality shebs@apple.com (1993-01-13)
Re: Code quality glew@pdx007.intel.com (1993-01-25)
Re: Code quality wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl (1993-02-01)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: drw@riesz.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:24:26 GMT
References: 93-01-017 93-01-030
Keywords: performance

bill@amber.csd.harris.com (Bill Leonard) writes:
      Most users are not going to upgrade their CPUs every year, nor even every
      2 years, but they are highly likely to upgrade their compilers every year
      (if nothing else, for bug fixes).


If I remember correctly, the product lifetime for workstations is 18
months heading downward toward 12 months. A lot of computers are thrown
out because the manufacturer has discontinued support.


Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT drw@math.mit.edu
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.