4 ms·

"multiple platforms" means "ten different types of gcc+POSIX+fork+pthreads" This. Unfortunate, but some even seem to think C99 support automatically means POSI

by stinos 11y ago

"multiple platforms" means "ten different types of gcc+POSIX+fork+pthreads" This. Unfortunate, but some even seem to think C99 support automatically means POSIX and then start complaining a platform isn't compatible if it doesn't handle what they thought was portable code..

uxcn 11y ago
Why is it bad to expect a portable operating system interface? Almost all languages have been doing this over the last decade (C, C++, Java, Go, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc...).
- stinos 11y ago
  Expecting it isn't bad, blindly assuming POSIX is available everywhere is bad, as in calling your code cross-platform because it uses just C99 and POSIX for instance
  - uxcn 11y ago
    The majority of the time it's a safe assumption though, so I'm not sure developers can really be considered to blame. The reality is, without it, developing software for a platform takes more effort which I think is one of the reasons languages have taken on the initiative of building portable interfaces. Even C11 has added threads.h.
- corysama 11y ago
  I once had the pleasure of writing a game engine that ran on Windows, Xbox, Xbox360, PS2, PS3, GameCube and the Wii. The 3 Microsoft systems shared some very basic Win32-style system API, but the other 4 were completely unique. When I see people talk about "cross platform" code only to find they mean "Linux and OSX!" I chuckle a little.
  - uxcn 11y ago
    I can only guess what the portable code for PS3 looked like :).
    - corysama 11y ago
      Here's a taste: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/xddlp/describe_what_developing_for_each_console_youve/c5lg7px https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/xddlp/describe_wha...
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        That was some funny stuff and enlightening. I remember having the PS2 experience myself when studying its architecture: so many individual processors stitched together it was like re-inventing 60-80's computing experience lol. That said, I thought it was cool that they threw in some scratchpad. It's better than cache in many ways and so underutlized in special-purpose, performance designs. Helps with real-time, too, as it's predictable. PS2's mainly just helped with I/O hacks IIRC correctly, though. Also interesting to contrast your description of PS3 with Naughty Dog comments. Seems like they got a lot more out of them but had to work hard to do it. Curious, there were products that auto-synthesized code for SPU's like RapidMind. I had planned on trying them had I used PS3's for acceleration. Did you or anyone in that industry try those tools to see if they delivered similar performance over hand-coded algorithms in gaming workloads? http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2007/05/08/rapidmind_two/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2007/05/08/rapidmind_two/
        corysama 11y ago
        The big difference between the project I was on vs Naughty Dog was that ND was 100% committed to the PS3 exclusively and eternally. If you know you can't escape then you are motivated to put in the effort to make it as good a fate as possible. The PS3 rewarded effort, but only on a very steep curve... Meanwhile, my team was multiplatform. That meant most people could hide in the easy spaces on the PC or maybe the 360. We had a small group of Russians and Europeans who enjoyed the challenge of hand-optimizing the SPU. They would not have tolerated synthesized code ;)
  - srott 11y ago
    you mean half of code compiled with __cdecl, other half __stdcall, some calls as pascal... oh, that's cute.. and 32/64bit..
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Because C and C++ never really had one. UNIX was seen as the C runtime. When the standard came ANSI C adopted what was considered the minimum portable bits one could use in non UNIX systems. Then came POSIX, which isn't as portable as many think. It also enjoys some of the UB and implementation specific behavior of the C world. C++ while trying to cater to C developers adopted the same attitude. Thankfully the C++ committee is changing that with C++17.
  - emddudley 11y ago
    > Thankfully the C++ committee is changing that with C++17. Which C++17 feature are you referring to? Modules?
    - pjmlp 11y ago
      The work being done by the SG https://isocpp.org/std/status https://isocpp.org/std/status Filesystems, networking, concurrency, .... Sadly databases died out apparently.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Looks like they're doing what they should've done some time ago and what helped many competing languages get ahead. Between that and recent standards, C++ programming might get really interesting again. Even I might take a stab at it eventually.
        pjmlp 11y ago
        Even though I hardly use it at work (JVM/.NET), it was my to go to language after Turbo Pascal. So I still enjoy following and dabbling with it. Some of the issues C++ had were: - C compilers were still catching up with ANSI C89 and it was a mess - C++ being in the process of becoming standardise was even worse. It was quite hard to find out what were the working common features between compiler vendors, specially in terms of semantics - The C culture that prevented many nice frameworks to succeed, because they were too high level, hence why MFC is such a thin wrapper over Win32. - Lack of standard ABI in an age people only shared binary libraries. C++14 and C++17 look really nice, but I doubt C++ will recover its place at the enterprise, beyond performance critical libraries/modules.

by stinos 11y ago

uxcn 11y ago

Why is it bad to expect a portable operating system interface? Almost all languages have been doing this over the last decade (C, C++, Java, Go, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc...).

stinos 11y ago
Expecting it isn't bad, blindly assuming POSIX is available everywhere is bad, as in calling your code cross-platform because it uses just C99 and POSIX for instance
- uxcn 11y ago
  The majority of the time it's a safe assumption though, so I'm not sure developers can really be considered to blame. The reality is, without it, developing software for a platform takes more effort which I think is one of the reasons languages have taken on the initiative of building portable interfaces. Even C11 has added threads.h.
corysama 11y ago
I once had the pleasure of writing a game engine that ran on Windows, Xbox, Xbox360, PS2, PS3, GameCube and the Wii. The 3 Microsoft systems shared some very basic Win32-style system API, but the other 4 were completely unique. When I see people talk about "cross platform" code only to find they mean "Linux and OSX!" I chuckle a little.
- uxcn 11y ago
  I can only guess what the portable code for PS3 looked like :).
  - corysama 11y ago
    Here's a taste: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/xddlp/describe_what_developing_for_each_console_youve/c5lg7px https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/xddlp/describe_wha...
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      That was some funny stuff and enlightening. I remember having the PS2 experience myself when studying its architecture: so many individual processors stitched together it was like re-inventing 60-80's computing experience lol. That said, I thought it was cool that they threw in some scratchpad. It's better than cache in many ways and so underutlized in special-purpose, performance designs. Helps with real-time, too, as it's predictable. PS2's mainly just helped with I/O hacks IIRC correctly, though. Also interesting to contrast your description of PS3 with Naughty Dog comments. Seems like they got a lot more out of them but had to work hard to do it. Curious, there were products that auto-synthesized code for SPU's like RapidMind. I had planned on trying them had I used PS3's for acceleration. Did you or anyone in that industry try those tools to see if they delivered similar performance over hand-coded algorithms in gaming workloads? http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2007/05/08/rapidmind_two/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2007/05/08/rapidmind_two/
      - corysama 11y ago
        The big difference between the project I was on vs Naughty Dog was that ND was 100% committed to the PS3 exclusively and eternally. If you know you can't escape then you are motivated to put in the effort to make it as good a fate as possible. The PS3 rewarded effort, but only on a very steep curve... Meanwhile, my team was multiplatform. That meant most people could hide in the easy spaces on the PC or maybe the 360. We had a small group of Russians and Europeans who enjoyed the challenge of hand-optimizing the SPU. They would not have tolerated synthesized code ;)
- srott 11y ago
  you mean half of code compiled with __cdecl, other half __stdcall, some calls as pascal... oh, that's cute.. and 32/64bit..
pjmlp 11y ago
Because C and C++ never really had one. UNIX was seen as the C runtime. When the standard came ANSI C adopted what was considered the minimum portable bits one could use in non UNIX systems. Then came POSIX, which isn't as portable as many think. It also enjoys some of the UB and implementation specific behavior of the C world. C++ while trying to cater to C developers adopted the same attitude. Thankfully the C++ committee is changing that with C++17.
- emddudley 11y ago
  > Thankfully the C++ committee is changing that with C++17. Which C++17 feature are you referring to? Modules?
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    The work being done by the SG https://isocpp.org/std/status https://isocpp.org/std/status Filesystems, networking, concurrency, .... Sadly databases died out apparently.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Looks like they're doing what they should've done some time ago and what helped many competing languages get ahead. Between that and recent standards, C++ programming might get really interesting again. Even I might take a stab at it eventually.
      - pjmlp 11y ago
        Even though I hardly use it at work (JVM/.NET), it was my to go to language after Turbo Pascal. So I still enjoy following and dabbling with it. Some of the issues C++ had were: - C compilers were still catching up with ANSI C89 and it was a mess - C++ being in the process of becoming standardise was even worse. It was quite hard to find out what were the working common features between compiler vendors, specially in terms of semantics - The C culture that prevented many nice frameworks to succeed, because they were too high level, hence why MFC is such a thin wrapper over Win32. - Lack of standard ABI in an age people only shared binary libraries. C++14 and C++17 look really nice, but I doubt C++ will recover its place at the enterprise, beyond performance critical libraries/modules.