Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!news.dfncis.de!not-for-mail From: "H.J. Sander Bruggink" Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcm9pZOKAlFdoeSBEYWx2aWs/?= Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:16:20 +0200 Lines: 29 Message-ID: <95652kF8muU1@mid.dfncis.de> References: <953kh4Fo65U1@mid.dfncis.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.dfncis.de g8z2p147kwpLODY8jFuT+w23XJJqjA54/cOFx5ObbuVf5V User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 In-Reply-To: Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5057 On 06/07/2011 03:40 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message<953kh4Fo65U1@mid.dfncis.de>, H.J. Sander Bruggink wrote: > >> The fact that there exist platforms on which there is no JVM, indicates >> that porting a C (or C++) program to a different platform is not simply >> a recompile. There is actually a big effort involved. > > There are thousands of open-source C/C++ programs that can indeed be “simply > recompiled” across a wide range of hardware platforms. Most open-source application use a lot of #ifdef's for the system-dependant code. So that is not a refutation of the claim that there is a big effort involved. > >> C is very portable, yes, if you're writing a single-threaded, >> non-networking console application. If you want the program to be >> actually usable in practice, you need platform-independent libraries for >> the networking, the threads, the GUI, the XML processing, etc. > > Most of which are already available, and written in portable C/C++, right > all the way down to a portable OS kernel. Even choosing only the GUI library will in general severely limit the platforms the application will compile on. groente -- Sander