Re: Randy's inherent hate of Apple IIs

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <69bvdk$cpu$1@opal.southwind.net>,
Randy Shackelford <shack@onyx.southwind.net> wrote:
>Dave Althoff (dalloff@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
>: Without arguing that GNO is or isn't a Linux lookalike (quite frankly, I
>: don't care...)...please tell me that I am not seeing a rejection of the
>: longstanding tradition of hand-coding Assembler for the Apple ][ series! 
>: Personally, I think the hand-written code is what sets the ][ apart. 
>: Sure, compiled high-level code is a lot easier to write, and it is a lot
>: more portable, it also tends to be bigger and slower thanks to the
>: included libraries...

>No that is not what you're seeing. What I'm getting at is actually what
>you're saying yourself, that it's easier to get good performance out of 
>hand coded assembly than compiled code. For 8 bit Apple IIs in particular,
>it's the only way to get any speed at all. You don't have linux on Apple IIs
>because there isn't enough horsepower to run so much compiled code.

   Randy, once again, thanks for proving your hate of Apple IIs and
the processor. You're coming up with bullshit technical reasons once
again for the "lack" of something that are dead wrong in the real
world. GNO/ME is at least 75+% C code, according to the current
maintainers. [Derek Taubert wished it was more C, less asm, in fact]
As I've said elsewhere, GNO/ME is a more than adequate substitute, and
as it's gotten the development time, it should continue to get
supported.

   Face it, Randy. This is bullshit being propagated by you to justify
your blind worship of Macintosh, Inc. You're coming up with statement
after statement which is just being shot down ("The 65xx can't do good
code design" "The 65xx can't run compiled code" "FSTs were anything
but bad code design") by the truth and facts. There comes a point
where your blind devotion to Macintosh Inc causes all reason to escape
from your brain, and you're just making yourself look silly. All your
silly reasons bashing everything but Apple show that you *do* have a
hate of the hardware, simply because you cannot admit that Apple
messed up here.

   It's much easier to accept that Apple never had a good design for
the FST API, then all of these *WRONG* reasons propagated by you. But,
since you've got your nose so brown from kissing Apple's ass in
public, you sure don't seem to care about your appearing the freak in
public.

   Back to the original point of this thread: Apple royally messed up
the API of the GS/OS FSTs. And that's *NOT* the fault of the 65xx
series, that's not the fault of the language things were written
in. That fault is purely on the programmers at Apple. And yes, I'm
saying they could have done it better, but they shaved too many
corners. If they're gonna be insulted by such a statement, I'd rather
hear that direct from them rather than bullshit excuses from an Apple
buttkisser.

Nathan Mates

--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? -R.A. Heinlein