richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (08/14/85)
Actually, I consider the entire conept of portability to be shaky at best, for much the same reasons. However, I also know that too many programmers and end-users want to take their software from their Apple II+ to their IBM clone WITHOUT CHANGING IT. They don't understand that hardware is built differently. I'm not suggesting that OS efficiency be sacrificed for "compatibility" -- this has been done too many times already. What I am suggesting is that what portability can be achieved be implemented -- as CP/M has been near-succeeding for years. An awful lot can be achieved by making systems compatible at the system call level and making individual, ROMed BIOS'. And yes, portability does mean lowest common denominator if you're not careful. My point is: do people want something like this? orstcs!richardt "Its called a tactical feint -- They charge and then the Platoon Seargeant shouts 'About Face! Charge......."