ac> It will be some time before we see sizeof(int) > 4 on a regular basis.  By 
ac> that time it may well be less relevant to the majority of computer 
ac> programmers than it is today as system-independant languages such as Java 
ac> (and languages yet to be formed) become more prevalent.  It's quite likely 

The implication being that C isn't system-independent?

ac> In the long term portability at a software level will probably become a 
ac> non-issue, especially once 64-bit systems become well established.  I am 
ac> thinking a few decades from now though.  Much of the portability issues may 
ac> well be solved at the hardware level than in software.  It seems like the 
ac> logical place to me.  With any luck it should allow programmers to get on 
ac> with more productive tasks, and not have them worry about the inevitable 
ac> change in hardware.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  What do you want the hardware
to do that would make it more portable?  Use the same instruction set and
have the peripherals attached the same way? We can have that now if you
want, just mandate that from now on, anyone using a non-80x86 (x >= 3)
system will be shot.  BFN.  Paul. 
@EOT:

---