Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Continued support of the Apple II
Message-ID: <12454@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 28 Mar 90 22:21:31 GMT
References: <9003281830.AA18965@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 15

In article <9003281830.AA18965@en.ecn.purdue.edu> eldorado@EN.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (David D Jansen) writes:
>>By the way, I don't think it's worth worrying about the 8-bit Apples,
>>apart from possibly selling software to folks who still use them.
>Gee, that is very considerate of you!

I was afraid that would happen.  Apparently our great educational system
teaches people to interpret statements out of context.  The original
context was that of developing a "reasonable" ANSI C compiler for Apple
II or IIGS.  If you were to evaluate the effort it would take to meet
that criterion for an 8-bit version versus what utility it might have,
you should come to the same conclusion.  A cross-compiler running on a
16-bit platform (probably IIGS or Mac) producing code for an 8-bit Apple
target would perhaps be worthwhile, but (as I said) only if you're
concerned with selling software to that market, since if you have a 16-
bit system you would prefer to use it for your own application needs.