🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr3.151153.3447@midway.uchicago.edu>, goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:

> What is portability?  Portability doesn't just involve the compiler or
> interpreter itself.  It's a property of code written for it as well.
> Why?  Because the code is as important as the language tools themselves.
> What good is it, say, to be make it easy to reimplement a compiler for
> more than one system when code written for that compiler will present
> a horrendous problem?

There are some issues that weren't addressed in this discussion.  In
languages which have OS command capability one has to come to terms with
the fact that different OS's have differing command syntax and differing
file system syntax.  Portability of command code across OS's really implies
that the language must supply that portability.  Consider, for example,
path names.  UNIX and VMS both have a path naming system that amounts to
device - directory tree list - file name.  If the code refers to files by
path name then the language should provide a standard function to return
a correct path name from the components [or equivalent functionality].  I
am supposing here that the language is strong enough so that path name
elements are symbolic and switchable in a config file.

One can list a number of such requirements, depending on the objectives
of the language in question.  In general, however, portability of code
in the language requires that all host OS interface capability be portable
across the OS's being supported.
-- 
Richard Harter, Software Maintenance and Development Systems, Inc.
Net address: jjmhome!smds!rh Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742
This sentence no verb.  This sentence short.  This signature done.