TLIMONCE%DREW.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (12/25/87)
aglew@ccvaxa writes: > [ whole bunch of ideas about making it portable to execute loaded in data] Things like this I refer to as "things that deserve to be unportable". Basically, I mean that: a. this is something that should be standardized on a OS level. Maybe aglew's suggestion should be forwarded to the POSIX group? b. this is one of the "fuzzy" things in computers that is always done a different way on each machine and if you are porting something like this DON'T EXPECT IT TO BE EASY! c. it's like side-effects, it's not "proper". (No flames on this one, please, it's Christmas) Recently I was doing a project across a couple (small micro)computers. Basicaly we decided that there were certain things that we couldn't make portable without rewriting the OS. Rather that creating a grandious scheme we (heaven forbid!) re-wrote those portions from scratch on each machine. Why does everyone seem to want to make EVERY program re-compile no matter what OS and CPU you are on? Are you expecting an ANSI C program for the Mac to re-compile and run on an IBM-PC? Sorry but they are just plain too different. (I guess I'm just another person that just wants to standardize the syntax and library and get on with life.) Tom Limoncelli Drew U/Box 1060/Madison NJ 07940 Bitnet: tlimonce@drew.BITNET Disclaimer: These are my views, not my employer or Drew Univesity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------