We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
Hello,
See here:
www.open-std.org/.../C99RationaleV5.10.pdf
Is it possible that "Jack Sprat", the staunch defender of the C standard as the ultimate reference when writing programs, missed the following statement?
C code can be non-portable. Although it strove to give programmers the opportunity to write truly portable programs, the C89 Committee did not want to force programmers into writing portably, to preclude the use of C as a “high-level assembler”: the ability to write machine- 35 specific code is one of the strengths of C. It is this principle which largely motivates drawing the distinction between strictly conforming program and conforming program (§4).
this is precisely what Per Westermark has been saying. Exactly what Erik Malund has been saying. Remember: Jack Sprat claims often that writing a program that complies with the C standard is a GUARANTEE for its correct functioning.
That is a very, very, very big "if"!!
As Tamir's original quotation said (my emphasis added),
"C code can be non-portable. Although it strove to give programmers the opportunity to write truly portable programs, the C89 Committee did not want to force programmers into writing portably"
It is a common misapprehension that the mere fact of using 'C' - in and of itself - will inherently make your programs portable. It will not
Just as the mere fact of using Assembly - in and of itself - will not just magically make your code fast & compact.
"That is a very, very, very big "if"!!"
absolutely. for this strategy to yield fruit, the code will need to be developed with portability in mind.
just because you are using C doesn't mean you will write portable code.
no argument there whatsoever.