Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #32394
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: is the java compiler written in c |
| Date | 2015-08-21 16:51 -0500 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <mr86ph$t22$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | <893a1a37-881c-4e59-a069-38386dd1b0fd@googlegroups.com> <mr2ngt$i1a$1@dont-email.me> <7b5d28de-2f30-4db7-aec7-03bd9ce81d00@googlegroups.com> <mr6j27$4et$1@dont-email.me> |
On 8/21/2015 2:15 AM, Eternal Hope wrote: > On 20/08/2015 00:12, gdotone@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 4:06:41 PM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote: >> >>> Finally, I have a counter-question: Why do you care? >> >> c has many unspecified and undefines, all for the flexibility of the >> language, so that it can be used to solve many different problems. > > comp.lang.c is a fascinating read. > > start: > > On the one hand, any suggestion that the official C specification is > 'tightened up' so that the almost endless 'undefined behaviors' are more > rigidly defined is met with howls of protest because of the > > 'C is so powerful because you can do anything you want with it and > that's the way we like it' > > brigade. > you can tighten it up in a way which works on most targets, say, making 'int' always be 32 bits, ... but, this hinders use on some targets (MSP430 or AVR8) which work primarily on 8 and 16 bit units. granted, you probably wont use the same code on an MSP430 as you would on a PC, but code *could* be moved between, say, an MSP430 and a Cortex-M or similar. the MSP or AVR are enough unlike a PC though, to where one is generally better off emulating the chip (and any attached peripheral hardware), rather than try to rig things up to fake it on a PC via wrappers (this is a more common strategy for code targeting ARM based controllers). > On the other hand there is endless droning on about making everything > you do as 'portable' as possible which requires an in depth > understanding of undefined behavior, despite the fact that the > definition of undefined actually equates to 'is unknowable in a > particular implementation' etc etc'. > or, narrowing it down to a range of platforms for which it will work, say, 32 and 64 bit Windows and Linux. > If one has the temerity to post c code that does something that is > platform specific, or, even worse implementation specific as I have done > in the past you are instantly jumped on and reprimanded for a poor > understanding of a specification that by its very nature can never be > fully understood due to the almost endless undefined things. > more of a c.l.c thing, not so much C in general. most real-world code needs a pile of #ifdef's and platform specific sequences for anything in may run on. > If you then suggest that it might be time to make certain undefined > behavious better defined then ... > > goto start > > You might consider this situation a dichotomy where set membership is > mutually exclusive. Not so, Some seem to have a foot firmly rooted in > both camps possibly due to some rule that determines set membership > imported from in a parallel universe. > > Like I say, it's fascinating read. > every language has tradeoffs. like if one admits to knowing or ever using Java, then people automatically assume that they are doing enterprise/business computing stuff. but, in the past, I was mostly doing games stuff, as well as a lot of compiler/VM stuff; now more recently, it has moved more into a mix of embedded programming. generally real-time motor-controls type stuff. and some stuff on hardware with amazingly bad hardware stats (several MHz and a few kB of ROM, and *bytes* of RAM). one could be like, "how does one do anything with only a few kB of ROM?", but it partly is a matter of perspective. if you expect to use a big complex program, it wont work. if can do everything in maybe a few hundred lines of C (sans comments), then, say, a 2kB ROM space and 256B of RAM is sufficient.
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
is the java compiler written in c gdotone@gmail.com - 2015-08-19 12:41 -0700
Re: is the java compiler written in c Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-08-19 16:06 -0400
Re: is the java compiler written in c gdotone@gmail.com - 2015-08-19 16:12 -0700
Re: is the java compiler written in c Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-20 11:08 +0000
Re: is the java compiler written in c Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-08-20 20:34 -0400
Re: is the java compiler written in c Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-08-20 07:44 -0400
Re: is the java compiler written in c e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-08-20 06:36 -0700
Re: is the java compiler written in c gdotone@gmail.com - 2015-08-20 18:58 -0700
Re: is the java compiler written in c Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-08-20 22:13 -0400
Re: is the java compiler written in c g g <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 19:57 -0700
Re: is the java compiler written in c Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-08-21 21:25 -0400
Re: is the java compiler written in c Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 08:15 +0100
Re: is the java compiler written in c e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-08-21 06:56 -0700
Re: is the java compiler written in c Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 15:32 +0100
Re: is the java compiler written in c BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:51 -0500
Re: is the java compiler written in c Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-21 23:32 +0000
Re: is the java compiler written in c BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-21 23:35 -0500
Re: is the java compiler written in c Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-08-21 22:39 -0400
Re: is the java compiler written in c BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-21 22:42 -0500
Re: is the java compiler written in c Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-22 11:41 +0000
Re: is the java compiler written in c BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-22 10:03 -0500
Re: is the java compiler written in c Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-08-30 22:03 -0400
Re: is the java compiler written in c BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-31 01:09 -0500
Re: is the java compiler written in c Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-03 20:46 -0400
Re: is the java compiler written in c BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-04 10:01 -0500
Re: is the java compiler written in c Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-22 11:37 +0000
Re: is the java compiler written in c Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:56 +0100
Re: is the java compiler written in c Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-22 18:04 +0000
Re: is the java compiler written in c BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-22 14:27 -0500
Re: is the java compiler written in c Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-08-30 22:06 -0400
Re: is the java compiler written in c Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 10:31 +0100
Re: is the java compiler written in c BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-23 01:31 -0500
Re: is the java compiler written in c Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-08-21 22:42 -0400
Re: is the java compiler written in c Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-22 11:53 +0000
Re: is the java compiler written in c Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 13:11 +0100
Re: is the java compiler written in c Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-22 17:55 +0000
Re: is the java compiler written in c Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:59 +0100
Re: is the java compiler written in c Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-08-26 09:44 -0700
Re: is the java compiler written in c Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-08-30 22:11 -0400
Re: is the java compiler written in c Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-08-19 19:35 -0400
csiph-web