printf, data presentation

[Chris Calabrese[mav]]

In article <79 at attibr.UUCP>, vch at attibr.UUCP (Vincent C. Hatem) writes:
> In article <144 at bms-at.UUCP>, stuart at bms-at.UUCP (Stuart Gathman) writes:
> } :
> } and the works.  AT&T curses is so buggy, we had no choice but to
> } replace it.  The worst curses performance problem is that every character
> } requires a function call(s).  A low level display string function does 
> } wonders.  Our screen programs went from 100K with AT&T curses to
> } 30K with BMS curses.  (NOTE, any PD curses is better than AT&T.)
> 
> Come, come now... AT&T didn't invent it - they stole it from Berkley.

Partially true.  While curses was a Berkeley invention, it has been
radically modified at AT&T, including the development of terminfo,
the addition various sub-window routines, support for color, and
amazing speed increases.  The question is, are you comparing an
outdated AT&T version of curses (say sVr2) to a new release of
curses from another company.  Why not try getting a hold of the
sVr3.2 curses?

I'm not trying to be pro-AT&T (I don't even work for them, I'm
a contractor), I just think their _current_ product is good, and
that you're possibly not referring to it.

Besides, who uses a character terminal any more :-) :-) :-) :-)
-- 
	Christopher J. Calabrese
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	att!ulysses!cjc		cjc at ulysses.att.com