On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 05:52, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:46:00AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > It's only compatible and portable on similar platforms. Any C > > code that chock full of Linux system calls won't portable to any > > other platform unless a (gasp) compatibility layer is written 1st. > > That's why you don't do that, and write to the C standard and POSIX > instead. Once in a while you need a very small compatibility layer, but > this is more rare in well-written programs than you seem to think.
But the point is that it can easily be done, and often is, to get that extra feature, or reduce the SLOC by a dozen or so, or to speed it up a little bit. Another thing that kills portability is the need to call functions that only have a library on a specific platform. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jefferson, LA USA Some former UNSCOM officials are alarmed, however. Terry Taylor, a British senior UNSCOM inspector from 1993 to 1997, says the figure of 95 percent disarmament is "complete nonsense because inspectors never learned what 100 percent was. UNSCOM found a great deal and destroyed a great deal, but we knew [Iraq's] work was continuing while we were there, and I'm sure it continues," says Mr. Taylor, now head of the Washington http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0829/p01s03-wosc.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
