From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:34:58 +0100 From: tlaronde@polynum.com To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20151127143458.GA692@polynum.com> References: <835ECE9E-472C-448D-8125-67BBACB09752@gmail.com> <69275011-637E-4D0C-9E17-2F0CF1B93503@gmail.com> <20151127124251.GA625@polynum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] Compiling ken-cc on Linux Topicbox-Message-UUID: 78e8911c-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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 http://www.kergis.com/ http://www.arts-po.fr/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C