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