Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!umd5!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Defining Portable (Was: Invalid pointer addresses)
Message-ID: <8601@smoke.ARPA>
Date: 3 Oct 88 05:08:53 GMT
References: <12088@steinmetz.ge.com> <8453@smoke.ARPA> <10595@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <1988Sep16.170408.16304@utzoo.uucp> <21199@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <21199@watmath.waterloo.edu> atbowler@watmath.waterloo.edu (Alan T. Bowler [SDG]) writes:
>At one time there were 2 terms "portable" and "machine independant".

This appears to be a dispute between holders of the view that a significant
application should be divided into machine-specific and machine-independent
parts (which, if done properly, makes porting fairly easy) and holders of
the view that most significant C applications need not depend on machine
specifics in the first place.  I think Henry and I are in the latter camp.