Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxf!mhuxi!mhuxh!mhuxv!mhuhk!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!guest
From: guest@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Portability of Mac Source
Message-ID: <337@ccivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Dec-85 11:47:53 EST
Article-I.D.: ccivax.337
Posted: Fri Dec 20 11:47:53 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 04:27:10 EST
References: <471@graffiti.UUCP> <20800048@smu> <186@srs.UUCP> <267@ius2.cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Rochester NY
Lines: 22

> In article <186@srs.UUCP> matt@srs.UUCP (Matt Goheen) writes:
> >Writing portable code assumes you have access to multiple computers/compilers.
> Not always, especially if you have good documentation on your versions
> portability with respect to a standard version, say K&R (assuming you have
> a 'C' compiler). 
> 
> For example, I can write code that implements, say the Christiansen
> MODEM protocol, and distribute source.  All that would need to be
> done for a specific machine is re-implement the following routines:


Who the &*()%^ cares whether mac code is portable?  Why should the power of
the machine be decreased by several orders of magnitude just so the program 
will run on stone-age machines?  I for one do not want to turn my mac into
a generic "computer".  The power of the mac will never be realized if we try
and make our mac s/w so it can run on a you-know-who pc (yech and double yech).

PLEASE get off this port. crud.

Yours in Test,

Sam Mantel - Rochester, NY  (guest@ccivax)