I think some of it is bloat.  Look at Linux 10 years ago and look at it now. I think the first time I installed Linux it came on 3 or maybe 5 micro floppies. That was around 1997.  Now it comes on a DVD.  ------------------------ Keith Smith --- On Thu, 6/13/13, Nathan England wrote: From: Nathan England Subject: OT: Then vs Now Programming WAS: Re: AMD vs Intel memory managemement To: "Main PLUG discussion list" Date: Thursday, June 13, 2013, 12:28 PM #yiv103033315 p, #yiv103033315 li {white-space:pre-wrap;} On Thursday, June 13, 2013 07:01:23 AM Lyle Tuttle wrote: In the 'old' days, I worked for the Atomic Energy Commission designing, building and maintaining computer controlled experiments using radiation from and located on the face of the reactor.....our SDS "mainframe" ran ALL experiments (including some x-ray diffraction projects in remote locations) in real-time......that computer had 16K core memory.......and people came from all over the world to see what we were doing....now a watch has more memory..... Time flies, and the only constant is change......           Lyle has brought up a question that is interesting to me. I hear stories like this of these amazing things people did with computers 30 and 40 years ago and then the comment always comes up like "And we only had xx kb of ram".   So my question is, was programming in what ever language they used back then more efficient and today's languages are seriously bloated and require more ram, or do programmers today not know how to program as efficiently?   Or what gives? -----Inline Attachment Follows----- --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss