G'Day David,
 
-=> Quoting David Nugent to John Gardeniers <=-

 DN> should, be used. Most budding C programmers will tend to 
 DN> reinvent the wheel unless they are more conversant with the 
 DN> standard library. It's the nature of the beast.
None the less it's a great way to learn IMO. Call me the "beastest".:)

 
 >  BTW, using Basic it's always been very easy to port most programs from
 > one machine to another, yet it's not hogtied by any standards. Haven't we
 > all done such porting when we first learned Basic?

 DN> "Easy"? Which operating systems and which BASICs are we 
 DN> talking about here? Perhaps you can explain why isn't BASIC 
 DN> being widely used for development of software?
Hehe, i remember giving up in vein trying to convert my C64 programs to IBM.
Mind you at the time i've just discovered why typing at the prompt "10
CLS" 
gave me a "bad command or filename" error and plain CLS didn't. :-)
I also remember getting Basica and GWBasic codes, and not being able to 
run them in Qbasic.Perhaps today i could convert them with relative ease,
but it shows how non-portable those codes were.
Btw, i think VB is used quite often nowadays in WIN, but of course one can
pick the VB apps at runtime by their speed(or lack of).   


  L8r Frank (fadam{at}ozemail.com.au).
  
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.21

--- Gash