Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!masscomp!peora!tarpit!bilver!jwt!john
From: john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: defeating time-out on com ports?
Message-ID: <1991Apr11.222908.18233@jwt.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 91 22:29:08 GMT
References: <3603@naucse.cse.nau.edu> <1991Apr9.160945.22325@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Lines: 11

In article <1991Apr9.160945.22325@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:
>  Myself, I prefer method #1 since I like getting more direct control of
>the hardware. Also, you end up with a self-contained program that doesn't
>require some other thing to be loaded before it will run.

... and you end up with every piece of software requiring knowledge of the
hardware, and every piece of software being bloated with duplicated 
functionality that should be provided by the underlying system.  Why
reinvent the wheel?
-- 
John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)