Xref: utzoo comp.sys.cbm:1402 news.groups:3827
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm,news.groups
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!godzilla.ele.toronto.edu!leblanc
From: leblanc@godzilla.ele.toronto.edu (Marcel LeBlanc)
Subject: Re: new newsgroups
Message-ID: <8805191749.AA03885@mothra.ele.toronto.edu>
Summary: Need binaries also
Keywords: comp binaries cbm
Organization: EECG, University of Toronto
References: <5502@emcard.UUCP>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 88 12:29:40 EDT

In article <5502@emcard.UUCP> mat@emcard.UUCP (Mat Waites) writes:
>
>I feel like a good way of distributing software to the comp.sys.cbm crowd
>would be to vote on "standard" language development tools and then distribute
>sources. If the group can pick a C (power C) and an assembler to use, then
>the posting of binaries would be unnecessary.

I disagree on two points:  I don't think we can choose an assembler standard
that would satisfy everyone.  More importantly, I don't think that C could
possibly be chosen as the high level language standard.  The availability of
C compilers is relatively recent for the C64/C128 world.  The VERY vast
majority of non-assembler programs written for the C64 are written in
BASIC.  My development language of choice for the C128 (and C64) is
assembler (BUDDY 128, PAL 64).

>The sizes of the sources are generally smaller than binaries (in C, anyway)
					^^^^^^^
For SMALL C programs maybe, but not for anything large, and especially not
for assembler programs of any size!

>  W Mat Waites                     |  PHONE:  (404) 727-7197
>  Emory Univ Cardiac Data Bank     |  UUCP:   ...!gatech!emcard!mat
>  Atlanta, GA 30322                |

  Marcel A. LeBlanc
  University of Toronto -- Toronto, Canada
  also: LMS Technologies Ltd, Fredericton, NB, Canada

CSNET:	leblanc@godzilla.ele.toronto.edu   CDNNET: <...>.toronto.cdn
UUCP:	{decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsri!godzilla.ele!leblanc
ARPA:	leblanc%godzilla.ele.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net
BITNET:	leblanc@godzilla.ele.utoronto (may not work from all sites)