[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question

On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 13:36 -0400, David Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Adam Stiles wrote:
> > Binary compatibility is irrelevant at best  {every Linux machine already has a
> > compiler installed}  and harmful at worst  {Windows has wide-scale binary
> > compatibility -- and rampant malware}.  All that matters is _source_
> > compatibility:  that the same source code will compile cleanly on a range of
> > different architectures.  Thanks to the excellent work done by the GNU
> > project in developing their compiler suite and automated configuration /
> > building tools, source compatibility is already a reality.  And processors
> > are fast enough now that there is no time saved in using precompiled
> > binaries.
> I've heard this argument before. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems to 
> amount to:
> 1) We don't care about anything that's not free software. (This is already 
> too much for most people, but let's say that's no problem...)
> 2) We believe that C/C++ is usually magically portable across hardware 
> architectures.

Well, you did say usually...

Perfect example of non-portable C/C++ code: OOo.

It's not in the debian-openoffice archives yet, but the latest
message from this thread says that OOo2 might not ship 64-bit

The King of the 3rd Gen languages from a portability standpoint is,
of course, COBOL.  30 year old code (even CICS stuff) will compile/run
directly on Linux with nary a change.

Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"That doctrine of peace at any price has done more mischief than
any I can well recall that have been afloat in this country. It
has occasioned more wars than any of the most ruthless
conquerors. It has disturbed and nearly destroyed that political
equilibrium so necessary to the liberties and the welfare of the
Benjamin Disraeli

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: