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 42969
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re: C and portability
by rajj on Tue 11th Oct 2005 01:52 UTC
rajj
Member since:
2005-07-06

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?

Or it could mean that Lisp machines are one trick ponies. :-P

Reply Score: 1

RE: Re: C and portability
by rayiner on Tue 11th Oct 2005 02:35 in reply to "Re: C and portability"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

As I clarified, one could easily write a Java VM for a Lisp machine. Heck, you could write a Lisp compiler for the Java VM (and people have). Yet, you cannot write a conforming C/C++ compiler for either. The basic fact is that C makes the assumption that the hardware is unsafe. Higher-level languages make no such assumptions. Since only a subset of machines are unsafe, only a subset are capable of hosting a conforming C compiler, and therefore, C is strictly less portable than a number of other high-level languages.

Reply Parent Score: 1