clipka wrote:
> Anyway, we're talking about a thing here that is very simple to identify
> automatically. 

Certainly. And for that matter, it *was* identified automatically. It's just 
that the wrong solution was taken. :-)

> For a project like the Linux kernel that is aimed at high portability, 

Well, no.  The Linux kernel wasn't started aimed at high portability. Just 
the opposite, really.

> - The most common C compilers for the most common platforms are used so heavily
> that even compiler bugs related to unconventional cases are still quite likely
> to manifest soon.

True.

> Another reason is speed, of course, but just like with Assembler it could be
> argued that only the most heavily-used portions of a project should resort to C
> for speed these days.

Mmmm.... Debatable. :-)  It really depends on the rest of the system. If 
you're writing in some language fundamentally different from C, you might 
spend more time translating into C data structures than you do to run it. 
Nobody says "Wow, this SQL query is really slow. Let's rewrite it in C."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message