Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Extending C with GC?
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2016 18:49:02 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <lninvcvxm9.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <60b33d17-71b7-4ecf-a821-dc641e2673ba@googlegroups.com> <3aa70e31-6e2f-42df-9c52-60cd923ddb6e@googlegroups.com> <6c8ded05-9ca9-4bae-a603-00b526ac0a77@googlegroups.com> <e0hj4hF7bmqU1@mid.individual.net> <39d45c61-964f-46e8-8f62-ee9611ee0d6d@googlegroups.com> <e0j19dFkucbU1@mid.individual.net> <0fe11c04-9255-475b-a3b3-797d3119ec26@googlegroups.com> <c0cb52d1-bb07-4aab-90c5-a9e892f6640c@googlegroups.com> <4c5800c3-b867-4daf-acb3-1c3e0fd6d789@googlegroups.com> <87k2funj8k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <no4ok3$q8v$1@dont-email.me> <68fcbc3e-2320-463d-8cfc-bff6f4d04138@googlegroups.com> <no5ar4$n1d$1@dont-email.me> <36309d12-d08e-4817-b2e5-7d9b974f0fc0@googlegroups.com> <no6svl$v2h$1@dont-email.me> <e0oeoiFoda0U2@mid.individual.net> <no72rk$h00$1@dont-email.me> <87lh08n2s3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <no81c3$mps$1@dont-email.me> <8737mgm7jq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <no8m38$kh0$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="25802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/OPnnWEd3IK8BDPJoowvL+"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HFQjFVHs0sUc2hvIbZ+uCxac/Lk= sha1:nAfgeQbUrR+EYckfoy6mQHrMjN0=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:91907

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Which 'make' runs on many systems? Which 'shell'?
>
> With 'make', every C compiler seems to have its own incompatible version 
> (and an incompatible makefile syntax to go with it).

No C compiler has "make".  Some collections of bundled software might
include both a C compiler and some version of "make".  Refer to my
previous messages explaining what a "compiler" is.

> How can you take something like 'Bash' and say it's portable? It doesn't 
> run on Windows because Windows isn't Linux. It can be emulated, but then 
> pretty much any program can be 'portable'.

Google "Bash on Windows".  It's supported by Microsoft.

Bash also runs on a number of systems that are neither Windows nor
Linux.  Ignore the distinction between "Linux" and "Unix" if you like,
but it is significant.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"