Comments:	Authenticated sender is <alaric+abwillms AT sdps DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
From:	"Alaric B. Williams" <alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
To:	David Cantrell <david AT diablo DOT eimages DOT co DOT uk>
Date:	Fri, 16 May 1997 21:54:08 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: OpenDOS graphics drivers
Reply-to:	alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk
CC:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
References:	<199705160212 DOT MAA19215 AT solwarra DOT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au>
In-reply-to:	<1348344101-21163430@diablo.eimages.co.uk>
Message-ID:	<863815838.116779.0@abwillms.demon.co.uk>

> > Ok, if 32 bit is more "efficient" then it must be "faster". No?
> 
> 32-bit programming is more efficient because:
> 
> o I can easily use large data structures
> o I can port code from other OSes more easily

 => C is a dead poor programming language, if you have to care what 
    word size you're using!!!

Modern LISPs give you ranged integers. Sigh...

(integer 0 256)
(integer 0 100)

The compiler chooses a suitable bit width...

> -- David Cantrell, http://www.thepentagon.com/nukeemup/index.html

ABW
--
Alaric B. Williams (alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk)

   ---<## OpenDOS FAQ ##>---

Plain HTML: http://www.delorie.com/opendos/faq/
            http://www.deltasoft.com/faq.html

Fancy HTML: http://www.deltasoft.com/faq0000.html

- Raw text -