Re: supporting second tier OSes
Jas (matt@uts.edu.au)
Fri, 8 Sep 1995 13:40:25 +1000 (EST)
Peter da Silva wrote this...
>> Questions: Which would you do first? Which would you do second?
>> Would you do SGI?
>> Our answers for comparison: HP 9. NT. Not unless a whole BUNCH of
>> people with checkbooks call soon and place firm orders.
> My answers would be "HP, and beat on my developers to write portable
> code", "What's the next most common UNIX box in that list?", and
> "After a couple of rounds it should be a matter of typing "make"..."
> Porting to NT should come down to "which C compiler has the most
> POSIX compliant runtime?". The NT POSIX subsystem, of course, is
> utterly useless for this purpose.
> But writing portable UNIX code isn't as hard as it's made out to be,
> if you start out with portability in mind. Like security, it's hard
> to tack on later.
> ...
> What a coincidence. I just had a developer come up and ask a
> question about converting between integers and pointers, and I
> provided a solution that didn't require doing any conversion. The
> code he writes is going to be more portable, now.
> And it's going to be clearer, because the solution I provided
> exposes less information to calling routines.
> Now I wish I was in a position to mandate the use of POSIX rather
> than Mach primitives when available...
im interested in this integer to pointer conversion thingy since im a
coder, mind sharing it?
Matt
--
#!/bin/sh
echo '16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D3F204445524F42snlbxq'|dc;exit
Matthew Keenan Systems Programmer Information Technology Division
University of Technology Sydney Australia
It's nice to be in a position where people apologize because they
assume there's humor in your work, based on past experience,
but they're not sure where it is. -- Rob Pike