<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Daniel A. Ramaley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:daniel.ramaley@drake.edu">daniel.ramaley@drake.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 2009-11-18 at 17:26:09, Nathan Stien wrote:<br>
>just about every platform has at least a C compiler so C is in that<br>
>sense the *most* portable language.<br>
<br>
</div>In theory. Of the languages i've worked with, C is the least portable. I<br>
find it ironic that it was specifically designed to be a portable<br>
language. Getting it to find all the libraries and include files usually<br>
seems to be the issue.<br></blockquote></div><br>In fact. As I said, the sense of portability I was discussing was total number of platforms a C program can build and run on. Nothing else comes close, since most other languages (and indeed operating systems) are ultimately implemented in terms of C. Try running ruby/java/etc on a PIC microcontroller or other devices lacking an OS. ;-)<br>
<br>Yes, in practice, system-dependent details can make the actual code more complicated (trust me!). But in terms of sheer platform count, C wins by a mile. And I don't see the irony about C being designed to be portable. Compared to assembly languages, the relevant alternatives at the time, it was a major improvement.<br>
<br>- Nathan<br>