Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Parks, Raymond wrote: >> Owen Densmore wrote: >> ... >> >>> Really hip programming teams will define a subset of all these systems >>> that are platform independent -- i.e. work on all systems. They will >>> stick to these subsets, understanding that sometimes constraints >>> really are freedoms. >>> >> I have a colleague who insists that the only such subset is C, >> straight up, no ++, no #, no Objective, no C-like scripting language. >> She insists that if you stick with ANSI C (C89) you will have code that >> is highly portable - as long as you stay out of the hardware. She >> considers C90 is just as portable, but is suspicious of C99 as it is >> still catching on in some places. >> > Perhaps it is worth at least entertaining the idea that some platforms > are _better_ than others? > For example, the compilers that implement at least 10 year old standards > instead of 20? No, it's not freedom to be constrained to 20 year old > programming language standards.
Hey, like I said, it's not my idea but a colleague's. I ran up against it when I suggested writing something in C++ rather than ANSI C. However, constraints sometimes free one by eliminating the difficulty of choice. One can move on without worry that the choice is wrong. -- Ray Parks [email protected] Consilient Heuristician Voice:505-844-4024 ATA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
