Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!psu-cs!qiclab!leonard
From: leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: A counter-example for those who would eliminate PC binaries
Message-ID: <1498@qiclab.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jul 88 20:26:40 GMT
References: <708@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <264@octopus.UUCP> <8820@netsys.UUCP> <268@octopus.UUCP> <4273@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>
Reply-To: leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson)
Organization: Qic Laboratories, Portland, Oregon.
Lines: 28

In article <4273@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
<Is it really too much to expect of netnews readers with PC's to have a
<C compiler?  Why else would you need to post binaries instead of
<source?

The problem isn't so much expecting PC users to have *a* C compiler, as it is
expecting them to have *all* the C, Pascal, BASIC, FORTRAN, etc compilers.
There is no standard PC compiler for *any* langauge. They all have quirks
that require changing the source to get a good compile. Sometimes these
changes are major!

And every one of the languages I listed (except possibly Fortran) has had 
a binary written in it posted in the last year. And most of them have had 
postings compiled with more than one compiler. I've seen references to
at least 4 or 5 C compilers in the descriptions of binaries.

I repeat the PC world is *not* standardized as far as compilers go. Even
if all the compilers follow the ANSI standard, the compiler directives 
and extensions to the standard are frequently different. Add in the fact
that unlike the *nix world where you get your compiler for "free", PC
compilers frequently cost large amounts of money. And this would have to
be paid be the *user* not the site!

-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]		...!tektronix!reed!qiclab!leonard
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."