🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <nevin-0502960933490001@150.135.1.79>,
Nevin ":-]" Liber <nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>In article <9602051241.AA26686@dxmint.cern.ch>, Dan Pop
><danpop@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>
>> For many applications, programming is a contract between the programmer
>> and the programming language used.  The for(;;); example doesn't break this
>> contract, it's a perfectly portable program.
>
>Portable is not necessarily the same as well-behaved.
>
>The following program is also portable across Unix systems:
>
>while (1) {
>   malloc(1000);
>   fork();
>};
>
>yet, I wouldn't call it well-behaved.  Unless your process limits are set
>ridiculously low, the above will have a noticeable effect on your
>system.

Yes, but the point is that it won't MAKE THE SYSTEM UNUSABLE, the way
such a program would on a Mac.

>I don't like paying the price for portability.  Heck, gcc is one of the
>most portable (across Unix systems) compilers out there.  It is also one
>of the slowest.  Since I use compilers orders of magnitudes more often
>than I port them, I'd rather have a fast one than a portable one.

Fine.  Then run lcc, which is both fast *and* portable (though I have
to admit, I don't know how fast it is in comparison to the compilers
you're used to using).


-- 
Kevin Brown                                     kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
            This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
                        Any questions?