Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: My widget is more portable than yours (was Fortan versus C)
Message-ID: <1611@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 26 Sep 88 13:21:25 GMT
References: <1040@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <4089@lanl.gov>
Organization: SCADA
Lines: 17

In article <4089@lanl.gov>, jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> One problem still remains with C, however.  The proposed standard still
> contains some deliberately ambiguous forms.  So, even after the standard
> exists, there will be non-portable standard conforming code.

This is a straw man. Of course C can be used to write standard-conforming
programs that aren't portable. It is intended to. C is designed for doing
things that cannot be done in a portable way: writing operating systems
and device drivers for example. It is designed to let you get down and
dirty with the hardware, so you can avoid mucking around with assembly.

It is never going to be pure enough to satisfy you. The ability to write
complete device drivers, including interrupt handlers, in C is to important
to give up in the name of religion.
-- 
Peter da Silva  `-_-'  Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
"Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?"            peter@ficc.uu.net