Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!bucsb!crewman
From: crewman@bucsb.UUCP (JJS)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Portability and the Ivory Tower (was Re: Book on Microsoft C)
Message-ID: <2436@bucsb.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 89 19:45:57 GMT
References: <754@oravax.UUCP> <225800146@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <9937@smoke.BRL.MIL> <425bf40d.b11a@falcon.engin.umich.edu> <3653@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: crewman@bucsb.bu.edu
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 25

In article Peter da Silva writes:
>In article Edward J Driscoll writes:
>> Your point is certainly worth taking into consideration.  My
>> reply question would be:  Are you willing to stick with
>> teletype compatibility forever?
>
>Machine independent code does not imply teletype compatibility. There have
>been a range of machine-independent screen- and graphic- oriented
>environments (in order of increasing sophistication):
>
>	Termcap.
>	Curses.
>	X-Windows.
>	NeWS.

Absolutely, especially X-Windows.  X-windows servers run on the local
machine, taking advantage of the machine's hardware.  This way, the application
never needs to worry about hardware-dependent features, and can be COMPLETELY
portable.  Each X-Windows server, however, must be written to take advantage
of EVERY special feature of the hardware.

It does seem, however, that such systems almost always result in a speed
sacrifice, however slight.

	-- JJS