Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7297 comp.lang.icon:693 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!mucs!m1!bevan From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.icon Subject: Portability (was Re: Survey Results : Perl vs Icon vs ...) Message-ID: Date: 5 Apr 91 14:22:37 GMT References: <1991Apr1.043321.11251@midway.uchicago.edu> <3252@charon.cwi.nl> <1991Apr3.151153.3447@midway.uchicago.edu> Sender: news@cs.man.ac.uk Followup-To: comp.lang.misc Distribution: comp Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester Lines: 14 In-reply-to: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu's message of 3 Apr 91 15:11:53 GMT > What is portability? Portability doesn't just involve the compiler or > interpreter itself. It's a property of code written for it as well. If we are talking about the base language, then I'd agree with this. However, if you have a decent module system (like Python) you can put system specific features in separate modules. i.e if you are running under Amoeba, you can use the Amoeba module, if you are running on a Mac, you can use the Mac module. BTW I'm not saying the modules have to impement the same thing, rather they take advantage of the facilties of the machine. Where's the portability problem? Stephen J. Bevan bevan@cs.man.ac.uk