Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pilchuck!dataio!fnx!nazgul!bright
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Just a minor new twist on free()
Message-ID: <119@nazgul.UUCP>
Date: 25 Oct 90 01:49:01 GMT
References: <7365@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <PDS.90Oct1095707@lemming.webo.dg.com> <PDS.90Oct3103126@lemming.webo.dg.com> <335@bii.UUCP>
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle
Lines: 13

In article <335@bii.UUCP> gegu@bii.UUCP (Gerhard Gucher) writes:
<And as we all agree (I hope), the gain of portability to non ANSI
<systems is well worth it anyways. (Keep in mind, most in use systems
<don't carry ANSI yet ( Mess - DOS doesn't count as a system (:-) ).

In my experience, MS-DOS has the most advanced and polished programming
tools available on it. (Probably because of the intense competition
among programming tool vendors.) Practically all of the C compilers
for it that have any significance are nearly 100% ANSI conformant. I
can't say that for other systems I have used.

If other systems are so superior, why aren't their programming environments
up to the standards of the MS-DOS world?