BB>     Many operating systems other than DOS provide 
BB> environments - unix for example.

Good example since I'm just learning Linux.

 > It seems that many MS supplied DOS commands failed to
 > follow the
 > standard. Is that one reason "standard" is often
 > stressed to others?

BB>     No. MS supplied extensions to the language usually perform useful 
BB> functions that were available in POSIX and were either 
BB> redundant or implementation dependent and so did not need 
BB> to be incorporated. MS uses the underscore initial 
BB> character to distinguish these functions from standard 
BB> functions.

Are you saying that the MS DOS functions that do not return an int, are
not in violation of the standard?

 > Perhaps you could explain why I see "the standards"
 > and "portability"
 > stressed by many, almost with a religious fervor.

BB>     It depends how old you are Byron. When BASIC was first 
BB> introduced it was a single code, and was simple enough for 
BB> everybody to use. Then Hewlett-Packard 'developed' it one 
BB> way and Microsoft another way, so that we ended up with 
BB> three different languages - Dartmouth BASIC, HP BASIC and 
BB> MS BASIC. We just want to avoid going down that path with C.

At 59 I'm still a novice who is learning daily. Have used, but not read
extensively about the history of, various languages. Assume you are
implying that BASIC failed to maintain a standard for compatibilty.

 > Am seeking info, reasons, and opinion with *no* desire
 > to quibble.

BB>     So I hope the information helps.

Oh yes, appreciate your input, thanks much.


 -- SRP 2.00 #2663: 

--- Maximus/NT 3.01b1