Re: [9fans] Compiling ken-cc on Linux

[tlaronde@polynum.com]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 03:07:30PM +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> Funny, but actually I was wondering if there is any subtle issue in the
> standards of the C language that makes it somehow hard to implement.

I guess it depends on what is the "standard". The naked C language is
(was) simple. The guaranteed routines were something else: the C
library---contrary to Pascal, for example, where some routines were
part of the language.

That's the way I understand Charles' irony: it seems difficult to find a
more simple (and efficient) language as C.

There are problem with standards but there are far more problems with
people that do not refer to standards and do not know what they use.
Using Plan9' APE is a good way, for example, to ensure that one is only
using POSIX. Yes, it is not up-to-date since POSIX evolves; but failing
to compile with APE is generally not due to missing pieces in APE but to
fuzzy use of things outside POSIX in the program one wants to compile.

BTW this was already the case when the Plan9 paper about APE was
written. But it's getting worse.
--
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                     http://www.kergis.com/
                     http://www.arts-po.fr/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C