wpd@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (11/16/85)
From: wpd@ATHENA.MIT.EDU I do not have an amiga yet, and, since I am a student, probably cannot afford much more than the basic setup when I do get one. I am interested in software for it, though. I agree with all of you who say that one can learn more from the source of a program than from the binary, but what about those of us who do not have, (or will not have) compliers for that source? I vote that both the source AND the binary be posted. Perhaps this is the case for net.sources.mac, I don't know. I do know that it would be terribly frustrating to see some wonderful programs that I would not be able to use go by. Don't get me wrong. I will eventually get a compiler, but at first, I won't have one. My ballot is cast for BOTH. Patrick Doyle wpd@mit-athena
kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) (11/19/85)
I don't know about the amiga, but there are 2 under-$100 c compilers for the
520ST, and these people will almost certainly do amiga ports by christmas.
I also hear of an ST modula compiler in that price range (still vaporware at
this date).
If you can't afford $100 for a c compiler you should not consider a $2000
computer. I vote source-only. Binaries hide software piracy, do not permit
learning, do not allow for modificationm, and are not portable.
--
Kurt Guntheroth
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
{uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!kurt