64-bit

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Just Visiting" <nospam at aol.com> wrote in message 
news:hbdk23$2qoi$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> They usually
> judge from the standpoint of their own momentary CPU
> performance requirements.

I can say exactly the same about people who defend setting their minimum 
system specs higher than they need to be. As soon as most developers get 
their hands on a new piece of hardware, all of a sudden they think no one 
else should be using anything less, no matter how useful or widespread the 
lower-end stuff may still be. And that's been going on for ages as well.

>
> If I'd use your comments during my next business meeting
> we'd all have a good laugh. But I won't because I'll give
> you the chance to think this over:

I couldn't care less what a bunch of suits think about my comments. If they 
even exist...this sudden grab for professionalism seems quite contrived 
considering the arrogance of your original post:

"Therefore 32-bit compilers are just wasting my time,"

Take a minute to think first the next time you want to jump in and tell a 
group of people that their compiler is wasting your time.

>
> it was the guy who is tweaking software, so a bunch of
> computers can survive their replacement by a year or two.
>

That's exactly my point. There are plenty of 32-bit systems out there that 
are perfectly useful, but then people like you go around waving a "32-bit is 
antique, support for it is useless" flag. And now you suddenly turn around 
and try to defend your disregard for an older piece of hardware...for the 
sake of hardware longevity? What?