Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Segmented Architectures ( formerly Re: 48-bit computers) Message-ID: Date: 1 Apr 91 15:00:25 GMT References: <1991Mar27.172325.10800@sj.nec.com> <7920@uceng.UC.EDU> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 15 In article <7920@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: > So here is a question. Which would you rather program, 1 lousy > architecture, or N nice but mutually incompatible architectures? N nice and effectively compatible ones. Outside of the 80x86 family, all my big portability problems are caused by differences in *software* architectures or buggy code. The 80x86 is the only one where irreconcilable hardware differences show up. This includes multiple operating systems and compilers. My biggest headache right now is moving stuff from one compiler to another on the same revision of the same computer... one of the compiler vendors implemented ANSI prototypes in a really lax manner, and added a bunch of extra keywords. Gol darn caniglyoon razzafrazzing Lattice C. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"