Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:13220 comp.lang.c:38966
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!stanford.edu!shap@shasta.Stanford.EDU
From: shap@shasta.Stanford.EDU (shap)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <179@shasta.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 3 May 91 03:10:23 GMT
References: <168@shasta.Stanford.EDU> <4068@inews.intel.com>
Organization: Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratory
Lines: 15

In article <4068@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <168@shasta.Stanford.EDU> shap@shasta.Stanford.EDU (shap) writes:
>
>>2. If a trade-off has to be made between compliance and ease of
>>porting, what's the better way to go?
>
>If you're compliant, you're portable.

While I happen to agree with this sentiment, there is an argument that X
hundred million lines of C code can't be wrong.  The problem with
theology is that it's not commercially viable.

Reactions?

Jonathan