Re: LYNX-DEV extension languages for Lynx

[Matt Ackeret]

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.

What is involved in Lynx being DOS compatible?  Is it just trying to keep
down on memory consumption?

Since you mention 32 bit platforms, can't they "just" use "far" pointers
or whatever they're called for everything?

(Heck, even on my GS, a 16 bit machine, pointers in high level languages are
32 bits!  The main problem with porting other code is that a lot of it 
assumes "int" means 32 bits.  Hopefully Lynx isn't that bad.  No, I'm
not planning on porting Lynx anytime soon!  But I hope the code would be
as portable as possible.)