Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rod Pemberton Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Charles Moore said you can replace all crap with .1% the code Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:14:34 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 28 Message-ID: <20161017191434.5ed224af@_> References: <9feed3da-dfa7-448a-a42a-fbbf5ced3f43@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: n4wpt9zq8xR26Ttf9mo2BA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.13.1 (GTK+ 2.24.13; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:51952 On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:50:20 -0700 (PDT) polymorph self wrote: > Charles Moore said you can replace all crap with .1% the code > > or less if you factor in all the hardware wont need > > examples of this? Do you realize that you asked this same question over and over again? I'd swear that you ask some variation on it at least once a year. If you don't have an acceptable answer by now, why do you keep asking it? Have you placed his statement into it's appropriate historical context? What year was this statement made? On an ancient 8-bit micro-computer without memory and without much hardware to program, when using threaded-code, this might've once been a realistic statement, although a figure of 10% or higher would seem more realistic to me, even way back in the 1970's and 1980's. With plenty of hardware to program in modern computers and the very large or complex software packages of today, I don't view his comment as a realistic statement anymore. Rod Pemberton