turbo C memory question

[David Bank]

In article <20401 at mimsy.umd.edu> chris at mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:
>In many articles many people ask about Turbo C, Microsoft C, and other
>IBM PC / MS-DOS compilers.  Unfortunately, they all ask on comp.lang.c
>(or whatever its name might be on the remote side of various gateways)
>instead of in a newsgroup about IBM PCs.
>
>Can we keep questions about specific implementations in implementation
>specific newsgroups, please?  (Obviously the answer is `no' :-) )  For
>instance, no one should be asking about the openlog() routine on
>comp.lang.c, because that is a 4.[23]BSD C library routine.  The
>important part is `4BSD', not `C library'.  The same goes for `IBM PC C
>compiler': the important part is first `IBM PC', and only *then* `C
>compiler'.
>-- 
>`They were supposed to be green.'
>In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
>Domain:	chris at cs.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris

    I'm afraid, Mr. Torek, I must disagree. And not just because I have
a question pending on the net. :-)

    C is C is C. Whether it is implemented on a Sun, VAXen, Itsy Bities,
or whatever. I was always under the impression that one of the great
strengths of "C" was its portability (that and the ability of
syntactically incorrect code to compile anyway! <GRIN> )  If this is
true, then the machine of implementation attached to given 
question becomes distinctly less relevant. The question deals with
the "C" language, it would seem to me to belong in "comp.lang.c"
regardless of the compiler involved.

    Further, what are the owners of "less than common" machines to
do?? Say I have a "C" compiler for my powerful Timex PC. There is
no "comp.sys.timex.pc" I have seen on the net. Must such people be
relegated to "dev.null" simply because they got suckered by a slick
ad???

     Respectfully.......

Unky Dave
unkydave at shumv1.ncsu.edu