Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 10th Oct 2005 16:48 UTC, submitted by Shlomi Fish
Thread beginning with comment 42756
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
First, the ANSI C spec was written before unicode was in wide spread use. If the spec was amended to include dealing with unicode strings, you'd have perfectly portable C unicode strings.
Second, what you really want is everyone's architecture, operating system, and programming APIs to be identical so that everything is ultimately portable. I can't say that will never happen, but I'd be willing to bet that it's highly unlikely. I don't even think its desireable. Sure, it'll make thing easier now (in the short term), but it'll ensure that we're on a path to an evolutionary dead end.
I don't believe that programs need to be portable amongst operating systems as long as protocols are open. Sometimes this might be false, but I think that really brings you to the ultimate conclusion: THERE IS NO SILVER BULLET.