Re: LYNX-DEV extension languages for Lynx

[Larry W. Virden, x2487]

From: Doug Kaufman <address@hidden>

>On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Andrew Kuchling wrote:
>
>>      * The constraint of DOS compatibility is a problem; as Lynx
>> gets bigger and bigger, it gets harder to make things work on DOS.
>> Should DOS users be abandoned, and told "Well, you've got the DOS port
>> of Lynx 2.7, and that's it for you."?  Then development could focus on
>> 32-bit platforms: Win95, MacOS, Unix, and VMS if anyone has access to
>> it.
>
>I am not sure what you mean by "it gets harder to make things work on
>DOS".  The main port work was done by Wayne some time ago.  Since then,

If I understand Andrew's point, it is that if lynx is rewritten from scratch,
then we have to start all over again getting lynx to with DOS.  And, if we
embed Guile, Tcl, etc. into lynx during that rewrite, we have to port
that embedded interpreter, along with getting lynx to work on DOS.


-- 
Larry W. Virden                 INET: address@hidden
<URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/> <*> O- "We are all Kosh."
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should 
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.