Xref:	news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:7544
From:	"James S. Blachly" <stew AT intellinet DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: RHIDE and DJGPP
Date:	Sat, 17 Aug 1996 16:22:39 -0500
Organization:	Intellinet ISP
Lines:	24
Message-ID:	<3216381F.5B8D@intellinet.com>
References:	<320FC47B DOT 4AB1 AT mindspring DOT com>
Reply-To:	stew AT intellinet DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Host:	mx0-016.lit.intellinet.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Joshua Cannon Butcher wrote:
> 
> 7)      And for everyone in General, why do you have to stray away from
> industry standards?  Calling object files .O files instead of .OBJ,
> calling C++ files .CC instead of .CPP, and .a instead of .LIB for
> library.  HELLO!  Its not copyright infringement to use the same
> extensions, and it would make the transition for existing C and C++
> users to use.  This is quite frankly scaring me, and almost makes me
> want to pay the $500 for Borland C++ 5.0 so I can have the "standard" of
> the computer programming industry.
> 
> I just do not understand, and would like to.  Thank you for your time...
> 
> Joshua
Well, as far as "industry standards", the extensions .o .a and .cc were
around in UNIX _BEFORE_ the dos convention of .obj and .lib (and .cpp).
Please try not to sound so angry and all knowing without first under-
standing the situation.

As far as three file extensions making you want to pay $500 for another
compiler, well, that's your business.

-james.
James S. Blachly

- Raw text -