Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 10th Oct 2005 16:48 UTC, submitted by Shlomi Fish
Thread beginning with comment 43373
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 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
I take issue with most of the article (as does everyone on this thread, it seems), but particularly the argument that C is inherently portable.
Well, then take issue. But C is portable, that is a fact. The proliferation of C-implementations is proof.
I'm sure there are platforms without a libc where there's e.g. a java VM (I'm thinking some specialised phone situations, for example)
First, you are comparing apples to oranges. The counterpart of the C library is a (subset) of the Java SDKs library. The counterpart of the JVM would be a C-compiler without the libc.
Second, your statement, even if true, does not contradict the notion that C is portable. If you have 60 platforms where you have at least C, and only one platform where C does not run, than C is still portable.
Third, you neglect a certain technicality, which is that C does allow a so called "freestanding" implementation, which does not even have large parts of the libc (Of course, programs using the libc will not necessarily run on that implementation).
Fourth, guess in what language is the JVM written in, which you suppose exists for that phone? Hint: It is not Java (-Well, okay, it is unlikeley that it is Java).