Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 10th Oct 2005 16:48 UTC, submitted by Shlomi Fish
General Development Shlomi Fish has written a new essay titled "When C is the Best? (Tool for the Job)". Its theme is giving several reasons (besides high speed and low memory consumption) why some code should still be written in C.
Thread beginning with comment 42817
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: C and portability
by rayiner on Mon 10th Oct 2005 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE: C and portability"
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

As long as you are on a "c machine" and since Lisp machines seem to have dissappeared (physically speaking), I think you can be pretty sure you'll be on a "c machine."

Good Lisp implementations have existed for both Lisp machines and C machines. Good C implementations have never existed for a Lisp machine. What does that say about C's vaunted portability? You're basically saying: C is portable as long as you only try to port it to machines designed for C. Duh. Does that mean it is portable, or does that merely mean that it's so popular that most machines are designed for it?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: C and portability
by rayiner on Mon 10th Oct 2005 22:30 in reply to "RE[2]: C and portability"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

If I was slightly unclear: the reason a good C implementation never existed for a Lisp machine was because the LispM couldn't emulate C's lack of type and memory safety. A good Java or Perl implementation would have been entirely possible on a LispM.

Reply Parent Score: 1