On Thursday 19 August 2010 01:05:57 Jonathan Yu wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Kartik Thakore > > <thakore.kar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > GCC extensions may not play well with the varying compilers out there. I > > think activestate uses a non gcc compiler. But C89 should be sufficient > > in terms of portability. > > I'm no C expert by any means, but the wise folks at #debian-devel have > mentioned that C99 is very portable,
I don't know what they mean by C99 being "very portable", but C99 does not have a universal compiler support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Implementations Namely, the Microsoft and Borland compilers do not support it, and gcc's support is still incomplete. Naturally, code written using C99 can be deployed on many systems where a usable compiler can be found, so maybe that is what they meant. Regards, Shlomi Fish > and even POSIX extensions are > "mostly portable" -- I guess it all depends if portability is more > important than your time. Sometimes features aren't that hard to > reimplement yourself, sometimes, you just wouldn't want to... -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Understand what Open Source is - http://shlom.in/oss-fs God considered inflicting XSLT as the tenth plague of Egypt, but then decided against it because he thought it would be too evil. Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
