Tony Smith wrote:

>> Again you're making a absolute claim, which of course is false.  Have
>> you really never run into programs that took longer to run than you
>> wished, even if you had the latest computer?  Even if you haven't,
>> are you really saying you've never heard of any or can't imagine
>> any?  If so, then there's a big world of computing you've managed to
>> miss somehow.
> 
> Hardware is cheap, software isn't.  A PC is a few of hours of your
> hourly rate.  How much auto-router code does that buy?

Let's see... Imagine an auto-router that's used by 10'000 users. Let's
say "a few hours" is 10 hours. That's 10 hours per user, so it's 100'000
hours. How much auto-router code does that buy again? :)


> There's a limit to the gains you can get with code, but you can buy
> cheap CPU cycles right now.  

Isn't there also a limit how many cheap CPU cycles you can buy right
now? Where do you go when you have bought all the cheap CPU cycles you
can buy and still are not there where you want to be?

Of course, from the viewpoint of a single user this may be the solution
-- if no other solution is available. But between two autorouters with
similar functionality, one may be twice as fast, and only a bit more
expensive. So if such an option is available, which one would you pick?
The slower product?


> Or are you waiting for the C programmer to save the day with v4.56b?

You're good in setting up strawmen, or at least are trying to be. But it
may be that you don't have to wait... there's competition out there,
even for autorouters.


>>> C is rarely needed these days.
>> 
>> That's better, although I think you meant to say the extra
>> performance of a compiled language is rarely needed these days.  I
>> agree with that, but note that this doesn't make a compile language
>> a bad idea, only that it makes
> 
> No, I meant C.  C & a HHL language can both compile to something
> that's pretty much indistinguishable.  

Indistinguishable in what sense?


> Microsoft showed that with QuickC & QuickBasic years ago.  

What did they show? I tried to find something about this, but didn't
find any relevant findings :)


> Why write in a language that creates more coding errors?  

Like for example assembly? Because in some cases and instances the last
bit of control or optimization that a compiler can't give or do may be
important. 

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist