Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:2143 news.admin:2237
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!bbn!gatech!rutgers!iuvax!bobmon
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,news.admin
Subject: Re: binaries on the net
Message-ID: <8909@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 19 May 88 23:39:24 GMT
References: <1574@looking.UUCP> <22099@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <392@pan.UUCP> <4577@hoptoad.uucp> <1220@ssc.UUCP> <3083@bsu-cs.UUCP> <53618@sun.uucp> <4782@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Indiana University
Lines: 20

In article <4782@teddy.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes:
>
>I just had to add my $.02

Ditto.

Machines that run MSDOS do not generally come with any compiler as a standard
component.  (Okay, IBM used to include BASIC.  What a lifesaver.)  I was in
a workstation discussion recently, and (I'm no expert, but) at least one
person thought it worth mentioning that one of the systems _did_ package a
'cc' with their UN*X-like OS.  My point is that, as brands proliferate, the
likelihood of having a standard C compiler available goes down.

If you have a machine that didn't come with a compiler for a standard language
(i.e., C), then source code is not much help.  The appropriate binary may
be a lifesaver.

[Personally, I now prefer source.  Thank you, Philippe Kahn, for marketing a
more-or-less functional C compiler at a price I could afford.]

-bob montante