On May 6, 5:40pm, "sos...@terra.com.br" <sos...@terra.com.br> wrote:

> > I'd love to actually have to take a trial of it. I'd love to have you
> > sit down in a room with a desk and a chair and my machine running the
> > ported webbrowser. I'd love to see you type in "google.ie" and wait 7
> > minutes for it to load.
>
> Pointless.


The point is to show you that a person is dissatisfied with it. This
means that the port was a failure.


> Sorry. Didn't get the browser in your text, and didn't realize someone
> typing a url with a joystick. I am not a game player.


Again my choice of Nintendo and also of a webbrowser were arbitrary.

A better example would be an instant messenger client running on a
small handheld device using an LCD display. If the algorithmic code is
too slow, then the display will suffer. Using int instead of
uint_fast8_t will lead to code which is about 2 to 4 times slower.


> > I'm talking about getting optimal performance out of every system,
> > whether it runs at 31 kHz or 3.6 Ghz.
>
> Nonsense. Aren't you the guy who "...lose the plot if had to wait one
> minute for a page to load, let alone seven...."?


Yes, I am that guy -- I'd probably smash the keyboard off the ground
if it took seven minutes to load a webpage. I'd then probably launch
the monitor out a window (a closed one, preferably).


> If performance was the only issue, why shold one have to use something
> portable or standard?


I'm talking about portable performance, not just performance.


> > (In regard to using C with embedded systems)
> > They work great if used properly.
>
> Where? For what? By who? When? How? Answer that to have a percent of
> the meaning of "properly".


Countless programs have been written in C for embedded systems. I've
written one full one myself.

All I'm talking about here is using types such as uint_fast8_t instead
of it. I think int should be abandoned altogether.