🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4fto61$clj@nntpb.cb.att.com> gupta@mrspock.mt.att.com (Arun Gupta) writes:

>Some interesting excerpts :
>
>Dan Pop  <Dan.Pop@cern.ch> wrote: in article 
><9602121654.AA02634@ues5.cern.ch>, 
>
>   It's damn easy to write non-trivial portable ANSI C.  All you have to do
>   is not to rely on platform-specific features (size of certain types,
>   byte sex, etc) and functions.  Contrary to what some people believe, C is
>   more than a high-level assembler and there are plenty of applications
>   which can be implemented in portable C (I wrote a crossassembler for an
>   embedded controller which ran without a single #ifdef on VAX/VMS, RSX-11M
>   and MSDOS, despite all the differences between these platforms).
>   
>Also, an excerpt from what
>Don Pop, danpop@mail.cern.ch wrote in the following thread :
>
>   >Newsgroups:comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.intel
>   >Subject: Re: intel delays P7 until late 1998
>   >Date: 14 Feb 96 13:34:43 GMT
>
>
>   And, of course, I wrote Unix software myself.  Software that had to run
>   on only 7 different Unix flavours.  It took a little bit more than
>   "little trouble" to get it working on all 7 platforms and keeping the
>   code reasonably clean.  Even functions from the standard C library are
>   not available on systems which claim POSIX compliance or do not behave
>   as required by the C standard.
>
>
>****

You have just shown that you can prove anything by quoting out of 
context.  In one thread I was talking about portable ANSI C programming
and in another about Unix programming.  Since the subjects were different,
my opinions on those subjects were different as well.

Anyway, porting between different Unix flavours is still considerably
easier than porting between MacOS and Windows.

I'm glad you found my opinions interesting :-)

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: danpop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland