C out of its comfort zone - Re: Structured Fortran - was Re: Self modifying code
toby at telegraphics.com.au
Wed Sep 23 09:53:57 CDT 2015
On 2015-09-22 10:25 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 09/22/2015 07:11 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>> There is a big difference between "can run" and "does run". I'd
>> wager that C *can* run on anything one could use for any reasonably
>> useful FORTRAN (thus excluding things like the IBM 1410 card oriented
>> FORTRAN compiler, though I am aware of an effort to develop a small C
>> subset compiler for the 1401).
>> The assertion that C was "nothing more than a bare step up from
>> assembly" is just that. An assertion. One with which I disagree
>> pretty firmly.
> We've been here before and I don't care to chew already masticated cud.
> Suffice it to say, that I've never seen a C for a non-binary,
> variable-word-length machine using 6-bit characters. I've seen plenty
> of FORTRANs for such an architecture, however.
You are correct. C, as it is defined, does *not* comfortably map to all
architectures by any means.
It did exist for some exotic, word addressed architectures (something I
remember Chris Torek writing a lot about on Usenet), but it isn't at
home there, and it's pretty easy to push C out of its sweet spot.
More information about the cctech