Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!husc6!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C/2 under OS/2
Message-ID: <9932@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 27 Mar 89 14:09:38 GMT
References: <357@rruxd.UUCP> <8903172140.AA04348@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu> <10131@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <10131@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> scs@adam.pika.mit.edu (Steve Summit) writes:
>... use something that already exists.

Maybe the vendor would rather sucker the users into becoming dependent
on non-portable features with the result that the users get economically
"locked into" that vendor's product line.  It has been known to happen.

I think it is up to the users (programmers in this case) to demand
portable tools as you've described, possibly along with extra ones
unique to each environment but clearly identifiable as such.