in reply to Re: Ansi Perl
in thread Ansi Perl

Ansi C is portable to different platforms without problems if you avoid the things that are specified as implementation defined as well.

That, after all, is the point of having a standard.

The problem with unportable C code isn't because every coder is following the standard. The problem is coders targetting their compiler, and (ab)using its extensions. And then of course, there are the different libraries.

Sure, there are some differences from one version to another, but if you restrict yourself to what is documented in the 2nd edition Camel (and avoid the aforementioned inherently-unportable things, such as backticks and link, and hardcoded filenames and paths), it will pretty much run unmodified and with the same semantics on any version from 5.003 forward, on any operating system that has Perl5.
I've yet to write a C program that broke because I upgraded my compiler, or that I had to modify because it needed to be compiled on an older version of the compiler (although I've had to rewrite large portions of C programs because of kernel upgrades). OTOH, every upgrade of perl has broken some program of mine, somewhere.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Ansi Perl
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Dec 27, 2004 at 14:00 UTC
    I've yet to write a C program that broke because I upgraded my compiler

    Which doesn't explain why I have to downgrade my gcc from 3.2 to 2.9 in order to compile Oracle. It's just an upgrade, right?

    Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
    Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
    Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
    Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.

[reply]
      That just says the other AM didn't write Oracle. And without knowing why you needed to downgrade your compiler (source not ANSI compliant? Compiler bug? Library issue? ...?), nothing at all can be deduced from that statement.
[reply]
        Actually, no. The first Anonymonk made the statement that, on its face, is identical to your rephrasing. However, taken in the context of the discussion, the implication is that C programs, due to their ANSI-ness, do not have upgrade issues. This is unlike Perl, as s/he states a little further on.

        So, within the context of the Anonymonk's complete post, the argument being put forward is that every C program ever written will not have any problems should you upgrade the compiler. I put forth a counter-example by saying a piece of software from the second-largest software manufacturer has this exact problem.

        I fully understand that there may be issues unrelated to the ANSI-compliance of the source or the compiler's understanding of that source. As you say, it may be a compiler bug (either as a problem or its existence being depended on). It may also be a library issue, where the library being depended on isn't ANSI-compliant.

        Yet, none of those items were present in the discussion before you brought them up. Which brings me to the problem of generalizations, especially when based primarily on personal experience. You are welcome to engage in them, but be prepared for the counter-example.

        Note: I am using the non-specific you. English doesn't distinguish between the specific you and the non-specific you, for which I apologize in advance for any confusion.

        Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
        Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
        Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
        Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom