From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 16 11:53:07 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C6F16A400 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:53:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A3443D45 for ; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:53:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D4620A0; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:53:01 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Learn: ham X-Spam-Score: -2.4/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on tim.des.no Received: from xps.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2E7209F; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:53:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 83F4733C8D; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:53:01 +0200 (CEST) From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: James Bailie References: <200604151313.32519.benlutz@datacomm.ch> <4441199C.4090802@carebears.mine.nu> <44415038.4020101@jamesbailie.com> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:53:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <44415038.4020101@jamesbailie.com> (James Bailie's message of "Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:57:44 -0400") Message-ID: <8664l991pf.fsf@xps.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is not more FreeBSD software written in C++? X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:53:07 -0000 James Bailie writes: > Efficiency is of prime importance in systems programming. The > only language in which one can write more efficient programs than > in C, is assembler, but it's not portable. This is a myth. I'm surprised to see it a Lisp programmer perpetuate it. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no