Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:32732 comp.std.c:3730 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!iuvax!rutgers!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!dgp.toronto.edu!flaps From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c Subject: Re: To ANSI or not to ANSI (was: Re: Just a minor new twist on free()) Message-ID: <1990Oct9.100717.28051@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Date: 9 Oct 90 14:07:17 GMT References: Lines: 24 pds@lemming.webo.dg.com (Paul D. Smith) writes: >My question is: since we now have a standard (whatever you may think of it, it >is an internationally accepted definition of the C programming language), why >do we have so much reluctance to embrace it? In particular, how can you >justify labelling a program "non-portable" if it follows the ANSI standard? Reality! "Portability" is (hopefully) not merely a buzzword nor merely a political concept. It refers to the quantity of C compilers which will accept your program and give it the intended semantics. When most compilers accept all the new Ansi-C constructs, then programs using them will be portable, but not before. I eagerly embrace the Ansi C standard. I would not write any code incompatible with it, even if that code runs on all the machines I know of. But I eagerly embrace reality too, and want my C code to work now, not just later. ajr -- "Anytime there are electronic systems there are usually complications of electronic failure," he said.