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: 10a146,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: Jeffrey Templon Subject: Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java. Date: 1997/12/30 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 311366102 References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com> <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com> <882756127snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <34A14C27.57C0@min.net> <67rjb3$pfb$1@brie.direct.ca> <34A50CAA.54AA@netup.cl> <34A7B45C.403B@min.net> <01bd147e$11496760$6a28b4cf@carla.ici.net> Organization: The University of Georgia Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.ada,comp.edu Date: 1997-12-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Alicia Carla Longstreet" writes: > No the language is *not* defined by any single compiler, neither is it > defined by any piece of paper. A language is defined by usage. A > combination of compilers and the standard. I'd guess this opinion is generated by doing the majority of one's work on the same platform, possibly even using the same development tools, whenever you use C. We have had *no end* of headaches on our big code, because the original lead programmer agreed with your definition of the language (in this case, Fortran). He declared that one extension he made extensive use of (no pun intended, but I like it) was *standard* because every compiler he ever used supported it. The year after the first major release, CEBAF made a big investment in IBM RS/6000 machines, and lo and behold this wonderful extension was *not* supported in IBM's compiler suite! Also lots of people started getting Linux boxes at about the same time, and it has only been in the last year that Linux compilers are available which support this extension (although there were a number of Fortran compilers available which did not support the extension.) So our project does not have access to a significant fraction of the on-site horsepower, and we're looking at a six-month project to convert this extension usage to conform to the F90 standard. Good luck with any porting projects you may have in the future. JAT