From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada) Date: 1996/04/13 Message-ID: <4knr5l$gb1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 147273586 references: <829279436snz@tsys.demon.co.uk> organization: Mindcraft, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Robert Dewar wrote: >No doubt about that, but always remember that it is trivial to write >portable code in any language if you have the capability of making >100% sure that you only use portable constructs! Unfortunately, almost >no large project I have seen has this capability. If the project managers want to use software standards to help ensure portability, there's no barrier I'm aware of that keeps them from using standard semantics for the system-independent parts of their projects. In many cases this greatly reduces porting effort for most of the source. -- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com (415) 323-9000 x117 karish@pangea.stanford.edu