🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <57650@microsoft.UUCP> bobatk@microsoft.UUCP (Bob ATKINSON) writes:
>xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>>jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes:
>
>>>One cannot write portable software, and in general take control of the
>>>intimate details of structural layout.
>
>>Successful languages (so far) give complete control where it is demanded
>>by the programmer.  
>
>Jim, I believe, agrees with you that such demands do arise and must be 
>provided for.  He merely points out that such control is NON-PORTABLE and 
>never has been in C++ OR C. [...]
>
>	Bob Atkinson
>	Microsoft

While your statement is true, it is very misleading.  It is due to the lack
of a standard when exercising such precise control that makes programs
non-portable, not the existence of such code in a program.  If you'll pause
to reflect a momoment, you'll realize that every area in a language that
allows the vender to make a decision on how to bridge a gap between cause
and effect results in a potential portability problem.

It is unfortunate that the smaller the gap, the more artificial the
language.  And, as we all know, some architectures will suffer greatly from
the ridiculous (to that system) demands placed on it by such a language.
Smalltalk-80 is a prime example of the wonders of portability purchased with
the pain of poor performance (how's that for aliteration :-).

I feel that it is possible to elimate the gap in the standard w.r.t.
structure layout without loosing any performance - especially if a new
keyword is used (e.g. 'exact struct foo { ... };').  Altering or adding to
the behavior of an existing keyword is not wise - it may break existing
applications.


- Tim Iverson
  uunet!xstor!iverson