Portability

[jacob navia]

One of the holy cows here is this "portabilit y" stuff.

In practice, portability means:

1) Use the least common denominator of all the supported
systems.
2) Between usability / good user experience and portability
always choose portability since this minimizes programming
effort

This leads to mediocre software that runs anywhere but that nobody uses
because it is just that: MEDIOCRE.

GUIS?

Non portable

Network?

Non portable.

This obsession with portability as the *only* way to measure software
has been carried out into this group by the "requiremen t" to the gcc
compiler:

gcc -Wall -ansic -pedantic

Obviously std=c99 is "not portable" as Mr Thompson never fails to
remind us when somebody recommends using standard C.

I take exception at this nonsense. Portability is fine if it doesn't
cost, or if its cost is minimal.

My priorities are different

1) Correct software, few bugs
2) Good user interface, good performance.
3) Small software, avoiding bloat
4) Portability



--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Ian Collins]

Re: Portability

jacob navia wrote:

One of the holy cows here is this "portabilit y" stuff.
>
In practice, portability means:
>
1) Use the least common denominator of all the supported
systems.

2) Between usability / good user experience and portability
always choose portability since this minimizes programming
effort
>

That depends on your requirements. If everything has to run identical
code, you don't have a choice. Otherwise, you split the generic and
platform specific part of the code. This has been standard practice for
decades.

This leads to mediocre software that runs anywhere but that nobody uses
because it is just that: MEDIOCRE.
>
GUIS?
>
Non portable
>

Well that's pretty bloody obvious. There's plenty of environments that
don't have graphical displays. If an application requires graphical
display, that display will have a minimum requirement and a portable
layer can be produced or reused.

Network?
>
Non portable.
>

BSD socket are ubiquitous in networking. If a device supports IP, it
will have sockets.

This obsession with portability as the *only* way to measure software
has been carried out into this group by the "requiremen t" to the gcc
compiler:
>
gcc -Wall -ansic -pedantic
>

That simply bocks gcc's language extensions, just like the conforming
mode of any compiler. It does not prevent one from using platform
specific or portability wrapper libraries.

Obviously std=c99 is "not portable" as Mr Thompson never fails to
remind us when somebody recommends using standard C.
>

Well that's an unfortunate fact of life. While most if not all hosted
environments have C99 compilers, a large number of embedded ones do not.

I take exception at this nonsense. Portability is fine if it doesn't
cost, or if its cost is minimal.
>

Which nonsense? All I see is rhetoric, backed by misinterpretati on of
some people's views.

My priorities are different
>
1) Correct software, few bugs

A good start.

2) Good user interface, good performance.

Orthogonal, many high performance applications don't have a UI.

3) Small software, avoiding bloat

Fine if you have simple requirements.

4) Portability
>

Fine if your end users don't require it.

--
Ian Collins.

[Morris Dovey]

Re: Portability

jacob navia wrote:

>
One of the holy cows here is this "portabilit y" stuff.
>
In practice, portability means:
>
1) Use the least common denominator of all the supported
systems.
2) Between usability / good user experience and portability
always choose portability since this minimizes programming
effort
>
This leads to mediocre software that runs anywhere but that nobody uses
because it is just that: MEDIOCRE.

Jacob, one of the pickiest places I've ever seen for portability
is the Philadelphia Stock Exchange (PHLX). I don't need to list
their reasons - you've read all of 'em here on CLC.

It's not really what I would call mediocre, but it's incredibly
reliable (has to be since literally billions of dollars of
dollars flow through their system every day) - and one of their
best boasts is that their system is faster, more reliable, and
less expensive to maintain than that of any other exchange in the
USA.

Or were you thinking of portable systems written by newbies and
semi-skilled coders when you applied the "MEDIOCRE" label? PHLX
has been operating continuously since 1790 and "mediocre" doesn't
seem to describe any part of their operation.

It might be interesting to find what the software being used in
the French Stock Exchange is like...

....my uninformed guess would be strict C90 with POSIX extensions.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

[Ian Collins]

Re: Portability

jacob navia wrote:

Ian Collins wrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

>>Language BLOAT is produced by features that try to solve a problem
>>that can be solved in a simpler way.
>>>

>Like RAII?
>>

I see you skipped this point, one idiomatic C++ technique that can't be
coded in C.

>
Look, this is stupid. Of course they are optional since C++ accepts
(mostly) plain C. Then EVERYTHING in C++ is "optional".
>

Good, so we agree.

>

>You continue to ignore this and
>spew forth the same nonsense over and over. I've given examples, shown
>you code and still you don't get it and then you accuse me of offering
>no arguments.
>>

>
OK. No more discussions with you.
>

This is typical of you. No arguments whatsoever.....

--
Ian Collins.

[Ioannis Vranos]

Re: Portability

jacob navia wrote:

One of the holy cows here is this "portabilit y" stuff.
>
In practice, portability means:
>
1) Use the least common denominator of all the supported
systems.
2) Between usability / good user experience and portability
always choose portability since this minimizes programming
effort
>
This leads to mediocre software that runs anywhere but that nobody uses
because it is just that: MEDIOCRE.
>
GUIS?
>
Non portable
>
Network?
>
Non portable.
>
This obsession with portability as the *only* way to measure software
has been carried out into this group by the "requiremen t" to the gcc
compiler:
>
gcc -Wall -ansic -pedantic
>
Obviously std=c99 is "not portable" as Mr Thompson never fails to
remind us when somebody recommends using standard C.
>
I take exception at this nonsense. Portability is fine if it doesn't
cost, or if its cost is minimal.
>
My priorities are different
>
1) Correct software, few bugs
2) Good user interface, good performance.
3) Small software, avoiding bloat
4) Portability

Jacob you are completely wrong on this. Or perhaps are you doing this
for advertisement reasons? If this is the case, you can advertise
yourself positively.

[jacob navia]

Re: Portability

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

>
Jacob you are completely wrong on this.

Small detail. You forgot to explain why I am wrong.

Ahh of course, because its me. Yes, I see. That explains
everything

Or perhaps are you doing this
for advertisement reasons? If this is the case, you can advertise
yourself positively.

And you could advertise that your brain is able to do better than
this
:-)



--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Richard]

Re: Portability

Ioannis Vranos <ivranos@nospam .no.spamfreemai l.grwrites:

jacob navia wrote:

>One of the holy cows here is this "portabilit y" stuff.
>>
>In practice, portability means:
>>
>1) Use the least common denominator of all the supported
> systems.
>2) Between usability / good user experience and portability
> always choose portability since this minimizes programming
> effort
>>
>This leads to mediocre software that runs anywhere but that nobody uses
>because it is just that: MEDIOCRE.
>>
>GUIS?
>>
>Non portable
>>
>Network?
>>
>Non portable.
>>
>This obsession with portability as the *only* way to measure software
>has been carried out into this group by the "requiremen t" to the gcc
>compiler:
>>
>gcc -Wall -ansic -pedantic
>>
>Obviously std=c99 is "not portable" as Mr Thompson never fails to
>remind us when somebody recommends using standard C.
>>
>I take exception at this nonsense. Portability is fine if it doesn't
>cost, or if its cost is minimal.
>>
>My priorities are different
>>
>1) Correct software, few bugs
>2) Good user interface, good performance.
>3) Small software, avoiding bloat
>4) Portability

>
>
>
Jacob you are completely wrong on this. Or perhaps are you doing this
for advertisement reasons? If this is the case, you can advertise
yourself positively.

You have been shown to be wrong, or unaware of many issues in C
recently. If you are to accuse someone of "being completely wrong" then
please justify this as you would expect people who correct you to do. Or
just join in the "Jacob bashing" as you have done - a core element here
enjoy that too :-;

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Portability

jacob navia said:

Ioannis Vranos wrote:

>>
>Jacob you are completely wrong on this.

>
Small detail. You forgot to explain why I am wrong.

Several others, however, have done so.

Ahh of course, because its me.

Wrong. You're not wrong because you're you. You're wrong because you're not
right.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Ioannis Vranos]

Re: Portability

Richard wrote:

>

>Jacob you are completely wrong on this. Or perhaps are you doing this
>for advertisement reasons? If this is the case, you can advertise
>yourself positively.

>
You have been shown to be wrong, or unaware of many issues in C
recently. If you are to accuse someone of "being completely wrong" then
please justify this as you would expect people who correct you to do. Or
just join in the "Jacob bashing" as you have done - a core element here
enjoy that too :-;

In summary, ISO C doesn't contain GUI APIs so far. So the argument of
not being portable using ISO C code and GUIs is void. Portable in ISO C,
means use as much ISO C code as possible, or better explained: Isolate
non-ISO C code in specific parts of your program.

Regarding non-portable GUIs , networks stuff etc, there are portable
ones out there, so one can use them too.


The whole argument that portability is not feasible because there are
GUIs etc do not make sense for a proven programmer like Jacob.

[jacob navia]

Re: Portability

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:
>

>Ioannis Vranos wrote:

>>Jacob you are completely wrong on this.

>Small detail. You forgot to explain why I am wrong.

>
Several others, however, have done so.
>

I do not think so, and even if that would be true,
it would have been better to say which argument
he was referring to. But that would have been too
much effort for his overworked brain I suppose.

>Ahh of course, because its me.

>
Wrong. You're not wrong because you're you. You're wrong because you're not
right.
>

WOW that is a DEEP thought Mr Heathfield.

I am wrong because I am not right.

:-)

OK. Let's leave this at that then.

*WHY* I am wrong?

Becauzzzzzzzzee eee... Because I am not right

DIXIT!!!

<snip>
>

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Portability

jacob navia said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>jacob navia said:
>>

>>Ioannis Vranos wrote:
>>>Jacob you are completely wrong on this.
>>Small detail. You forgot to explain why I am wrong.

>>
>Several others, however, have done so.
>>

>
I do not think so,

Several others, however, do think so.

and even if that would be true,
it would have been better to say which argument
he was referring to.

But there are so many to choose from.

But that would have been too
much effort for his overworked brain I suppose.

Are you *trying* to make enemies here?

>>Ahh of course, because its me.

>>
>Wrong. You're not wrong because you're you. You're wrong because you're
>not right.
>>

>
WOW that is a DEEP thought Mr Heathfield.
>
I am wrong because I am not right.

That's it in a nutshell. Most people understand this. It seemed, however,
that you didn't. You seemed to think, erroneously, that you were wrong
because you were you, and I was simply correcting you and explaining the
real reason you were wrong. You should be used to this by now.

:-)
>
OK. Let's leave this at that then.
>
*WHY* I am wrong?
>
Becauzzzzzzzzee eee... Because I am not right

Several people have already explained elsethread *why* you are not right. I
see no value in rehashing those arguments. Try reading them.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Ioannis Vranos]

Re: Portability

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>
>OK. Let's leave this at that then.
>>
>*WHY* I am wrong?
>>
>Becauzzzzzzzze eeee... Because I am not right

>
Several people have already explained elsethread *why* you are not right. I
see no value in rehashing those arguments. Try reading them.

Has anyone checked for the possibility that he is not the real Jacob
Navia but some troll using his name?

[Walter Roberson]

Re: Portability

In article <ftd4vo$1mm5$1@ ulysses.noc.ntu a.gr>,
Ioannis Vranos <ivranos@nospam .no.spamfreemai l.grwrote:

>Regarding non-portable GUIs , networks stuff etc, there are portable
>ones out there, so one can use them too.

In your above sentance, about there being "portable ones out there",
what do you mean by portable? Do you mean that there are pure
ISO standard C implementations of these things? Did you mean
that there are libraries available that have all the system-specific
knowledge built in already, making them usable on -every- system?
On every -hosted- system?
--
"The art of storytelling is reaching its end because the epic
side of truth, wisdom, is dying out." -- Walter Benjamin

[Walter Roberson]

Re: Portability

In article <65ucacF2g9tk5U 11@mid.individu al.net>,
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.co mwrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

>The fact that ALL windows systems
>feature a C interface is answered with "maybe". Can you name a single
>one that doesn't?

>No, but I bet someone else can.

It is my -impression- (possibly incorrect) that the cell phone market
is heavily programmed in Java; I had gathered that C is not supported
on a lot of those systems. But I do not work in that field, so it
could be that C is merely not offered as a "public" interface and
that the Java itself is implemented in C? Could someone who works
with cell phones clarify/correct this issue?
--
"I think Walter was a very smart man." -- Gene Autry

[Ioannis Vranos]

Re: Portability

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <ftd4vo$1mm5$1@ ulysses.noc.ntu a.gr>,
Ioannis Vranos <ivranos@nospam .no.spamfreemai l.grwrote:
>

>Regarding non-portable GUIs , networks stuff etc, there are portable
>ones out there, so one can use them too.

>
In your above sentance, about there being "portable ones out there",
what do you mean by portable? Do you mean that there are pure
ISO standard C implementations of these things? Did you mean
that there are libraries available that have all the system-specific
knowledge built in already, making them usable on -every- system?
On every -hosted- system?

I meant portable APIs, which have not portable implementations necessarily.