Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site redwood.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!fortune!redwood!rpw3 From: rpw3@redwood.UUCP (Rob Warnock) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Postings of microcomputer software Message-ID: <151@redwood.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 16:51:46 EST Article-I.D.: redwood.151 Posted: Thu Feb 7 16:51:46 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 09:47:24 EST References: <165@ur-cvsvax.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: [Consultant], Foster City, CA Lines: 30 +--------------- | 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