gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (04/22/86)
In article <2122@watmath.UUCP>, atbowler@watmath.UUCP (Alan T. Bowler [SDG]) writes: > There is a problem if you want to support a "nargs" function with this... > There are 2 ways arround this... > 2) delete nargs functionality... > I know that the later option is one I must assume when I am writing > very portable programs, but there are many times when I am writing > system specific code and it is annoying... I wonder what he means by "very portable programs"? * I am writing this to sell it on 15 different micros and make my fortune. * The program needs to work at this site next year, after we have scrapped our Vax and bought a RISC machine. * The program needs to work for the guy that asks for it next week over the net. * I want to learn what real-world program maintenance is all about. Or, in contrast, "system specific code": * This was just written as an assignment for CS100 and it has no use anyway. * This is a tool I will want to use in my next job or class, but I don't mind rewriting it. * This is part of the kernel and nobody will ever port an OS kernel to a different machine. It just can't be done. * Nobody maintains the C compiler and libraries here so they will never change, so this assumption is safe. * I just want this to work *now* and damn the torpedoes if it doesn't work next week. * I want to learn what real-world program maintenance is all about. <:-) -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa