* The Ghost In The Machine fired off this tart reply:

>> Odd I spent some two decades writing primarily C code and I'm quite under

>> the impression C code is portable. Perhaps you could explain why you

>> think otherwise?

>

> C code is portable if one respects the standards in both

> C and the Portable Library and any other POSIX constructs.

>

> Microsoft is not noted for doing so. :-)

 

Actually, I've noticed an uptick in Microsoft's POSIX compliance,

especially in the network protocol functions.

 

The problem with Microsoft C is that newbies tend toward using Win32 API

functions when perfectly good (and usually simpler) ones are already

present in their implementation of the C standard.

 

But that's a general problem. Another example is someone who uses Qt's

string or container objects, when the Standard C++ versions are

perfectly fine.

 

Sometimes it is true that users turn the key on the lock-in themselves.

 

--

Tux rox!

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:va7t15-rug.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...

> [snips]

>

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:45:01 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

>

>> Non portable C code was another frequent problem.

>> Anyone that claims C is portable hasn't written any.

>

> Odd I spent some two decades writing primarily C code and I'm quite under

> the impression C code is portable. Perhaps you could explain why you

> think otherwise?

 

Did you remember to restrict yourself to a subset? like not using bitwise

ops?

Maybe you were lucky and never used anything other than an Intel or Amd CPU

so you didn't have any endian problems?

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:25:55 -0000, "dennis@home"

<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>

>

>"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message

>news:va7t15-rug.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...

>> [snips]

>>

>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:45:01 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>> Non portable C code was another frequent problem.

>>> Anyone that claims C is portable hasn't written any.

>>

>> Odd I spent some two decades writing primarily C code and I'm quite under

>> the impression C code is portable. Perhaps you could explain why you

>> think otherwise?

>

>Did you remember to restrict yourself to a subset? like not using bitwise

>ops?

>Maybe you were lucky and never used anything other than an Intel or Amd CPU

>so you didn't have any endian problems?

 

 

Kelsey couldn't run water at the local loo and get it to go into the

drain.