tony@ur-cvsvax.UUCP (Tony Movshon) (02/03/85)
[?]
Since compilers for anything other than assembly language tend not to
be standardized in the microcomputer world, may I suggest that postings
of software written in higher-level languages to net.micro.{whatever}
or net.sources include uuencoded copies of the binary files whenever
possible?
Tony Movshon
Psychology Dept., NYU
uucp: {seismo|ihnp4|allegra}!cmcl2!hipl!tony
arpa: hipl!tony@nyu-cmcl2rpw3@redwood.UUCP (Rob Warnock) (02/08/85)
+--------------- | Since compilers for anything other than assembly language tend not to | be standardized in the microcomputer world, may I suggest that postings | of software written in higher-level languages to net.micro.{whatever} | or net.sources include uuencoded copies of the binary files whenever | possible? | Tony Movshon +--------------- (Was this a joke? I dare not assume so...) Since operating system calling conventions and hardware register locations are even LESS "standard" than higher-level languages, let's NOT further clutter "net.sources" with useless binaries, P L E A S E !?!?! Higher- level languages are the MOST likely to be standard, and if portability problems arise, it is far FAR easier to tweak a C program for my local environment than an 8080 binary!!! (...especially since I use a 68000!) Even on 68000-based UNIXes, for example, the binaries are not likely to be usable across multiple vendors of machines and UNIX ports. p.s. Even assembly languages are not standard for the same machine. I know of at least three 68000 assembler formats I have had to deal with. Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax!dual}!fortune!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 USPS: 510 Trinidad Lane, Foster City, CA 94404
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (02/11/85)
> +--------------- > | Since compilers for anything other than assembly language tend not to > | be standardized in the microcomputer world, may I suggest that postings > | of software written in higher-level languages to net.micro.{whatever} > | or net.sources include uuencoded copies of the binary files whenever > | possible? | Tony Movshon > +--------------- > > (Was this a joke? I dare not assume so...) > > Since operating system calling conventions and hardware register locations > are even LESS "standard" than higher-level languages, let's NOT further > clutter "net.sources" with useless binaries, P L E A S E !?!?! Higher- > level languages are the MOST likely to be standard, and if portability > problems arise, it is far FAR easier to tweak a C program for my local > environment than an 8080 binary!!! (...especially since I use a 68000!) > > p.s. Even assembly languages are not standard for the same machine. I know > of at least three 68000 assembler formats I have had to deal with. > > Rob Warnock > Systems Architecture Consultant Good theory -- too bad it's wrong. I sent Tony Movshon a few C programs that would compile under DeSmet C AND CI-C86 for the IBM PC, and he had a rough time getting them to compile, much less work, under Lattice C. I have yet to get working Lattice C programs he sent me to compile under either compiler I use. He had no trouble running the executable code on his DEC Rainbow, and I ran executables he sent on my IBM PC. We had the same experience with a Z-100 and a TI Professional -- all 8088/8086 machines. I admit we were surprised, but ... well, there it is. -- Ed Nather Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather