4 ms·
Huh? What do you think defines “regular C code that works”? Standards. Every compiler you have used operates at a bare minimum on the C standard. That’s why th
by uncomputation 5y ago
Huh? What do you think defines “regular C code that works”? Standards.
Every compiler you have used operates at a bare minimum on the C standard. That’s why they are often advertised (if not GCC/Clang which are assumed to be up to date) as “C(89|99|11|17) compliant.” “Code that works” is code which is operates under constraints and guarantees specified by a standard, anything else is undefined or unportable.
- flyinglizard 5y agoEmbedded environments are specific and esoteric enough that compiler portability is the least of your concern when migrating code from one platform to the other.
- pkrumins 5y agoOnly the standards people care about standards. We (programmers) want to just get things done. We don't care about the standards. No one reads the standards. Also no one cares about portability. All computers have been the same for the last 20 years.
- drran 5y agoWe, developers, care about standards, because we want to get things done once.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pjmlp 5y agoRight, then comes the day another OS or CPU needs to be supported and some clever developers learn their lesson about language standards during a couple of late nights tracking down production issues.
- xigoi 5y agoI'll rather have code that runs on an actual computer than code that should hypothetically run according to a long document that costs 60 dollars to read.
- pkrumins 5y agoExactly. You get it 100%. We should work together.