Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!itsgw!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!bader+
From: bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: portability
Message-ID: <YXnd7fy00UkaI3Om9C@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 14 Jan 89 00:18:51 GMT
References: <1354@tank.uchicago.edu>,
	<3377@arcturus>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 13
In-Reply-To: <3377@arcturus>

evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie) writes:
> In article <1354@tank.uchicago.edu>, goer@sophist.uucp (Richard Goerwitz) writes:
> > QUESTION: What compiler for use under MS-DOS is the most portable?
> I have had a lot of luck with Microsoft C (not Quick-C, for which I can
> say nothing as I have not tried it).  It seems to be one of the richest
> versions of the language I have seen and it makes small, fast code.  You
> can certainly utilize its capabilities to write (expansive) code that
> is portable.

Assuming, of course, that you don't use one of the 437,889 microsoft
extensions to the language...

-Miles