Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #30336

Re: Java ME or SE?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/10/2014 7:37 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:51:48 +0100, Kees Theunissen wrote:
>
>> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> A modern C compiler can compile any C program that was written in the
>>> past, including those using the original K&R syntax.

     Well, no: It won't *always* compile.

	#include <strings.h>  /* <string.h> nowadays */

	#include <malloc.h>  /* <stdarg.h> nowadays, sort of */

	#include <varargs.h>
	/* ... and the not-quite-compatible consequents thereof */

	#include <stdio.h>
	...	
	char *p = sprintf(...);  /* worked in some old C's, not today */

	enum permissiveness { allow, forbid, restrict };

	enum roller_skate_type { side_by_side, inline };

	processTransaction(tptr, void)
	    Transaction *tptr;  /* the transaction to process */
	    int void;           /* flag: true to void the transaction */
	{ ... }

	extern char *malloc();
	...
	float matrix = (float*) malloc(rows * cols * sizeof(float));
	/* This one's moderately subtle, but potentially fatal because
	 * although it may well compile, thus not providing a reliable
	 * counter-example to your assertion, it can misbehave badly.
	 */

	unsigned short this = 42;
	int that = -42;
	int those = this * that;
	/* Another "It compiles" example, where "It compiles" is of
	 * little comfort.  Modern C gives -1764 as the result, while
	 * some old C's gave 4294965532 or 63772.  Again, a case where
	 * "It compiles" simply isn't good enough: "It compiles," but
	 * to something not intended by the author.
	 */

     Java's a lot cleaner than C in this respect (given its shorter
history, it ought to be), but still not quite perfect.  Consider a
pre-1.4 source using `assert' as an identifier, or a pre-1.2 source
with a method named `strictfp'.  Change is the only constant.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Java ME or SE? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2014-11-09 00:58 +1100
  Re: Java ME or SE? Knute Johnson <eternal@knutejohnson.com> - 2014-11-08 09:27 -0800
  Re: Java ME or SE? Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org> - 2014-11-08 16:17 -0600
    Re: Java ME or SE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-11-08 17:38 -0500
      Re: Java ME or SE? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2014-11-09 15:51 +1100
  Re: Java ME or SE? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-11-08 17:42 -0500
  Re: Java ME or SE? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-11-08 18:11 -0800
    Re: Java ME or SE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2014-11-09 11:51 +0000
    Re: Java ME or SE? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2014-11-09 12:36 +0000
      Re: Java ME or SE? alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-11-09 13:28 +0000
        Re: Java ME or SE? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-11-10 10:00 +0000
    Re: Java ME or SE? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2014-11-11 01:41 +1100
      Re: Java ME or SE? cl@isbd.net - 2014-11-10 16:48 +0000
        [OT] Re: Java ME or SE? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-10 13:57 -0500
      Re: Java ME or SE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2014-11-10 21:15 +0000
        Re: Java ME or SE? Kees Theunissen <theuniss@rijnh.nl> - 2014-11-10 23:51 +0100
          Re: Java ME or SE? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2014-11-11 00:37 +0000
            Re: Java ME or SE? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-10 20:11 -0500
              Re: Java ME or SE? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-11-10 20:45 -0500
          Re: Java ME or SE? Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2014-11-11 07:00 +0100
            Re: Java ME or SE? alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-11-11 09:46 +0000

csiph-web