1. RE: Solaris ?
this is kinda stupid...shouldn't any program coded for any UNIX clone
run on any UNIX clone(save the clones without ncurses like BeOS)? it
would make sense to have PC, 68K, PPC, etc versions of the interpreter,
but a version for every UNIX flavor out there?
Robert Craig wrote:
> When 2.3 is ready, I'll be thinking about other platforms,
> and whether I can get other people to help with porting.
>
> I'll note your vote for Solaris.
2. RE: Solaris ?
Robert Craig wrote:
> UNIX is not like Windows.
> There are many different flavors produced by
> many different companies or groups, and they
> are all somewhat incompatible. On top of that
> there are many different hardware platforms for UNIX.
The include files have to do more with different hardware
than differnt versions of UNIX.
UNIX was written in "C" because it is a portable langauge so
it could be moved easily across platforms. In fact UNIX was
invented by the same programers who wrote "C". If Euphoria is
written in standard "C" then it only needs to be compiled on
the "C" compiler written for that platform. The real problem
may be that Euphoria is not written in "C" that is portable.
Bernie
3. RE: Solaris ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Ryan [mailto:xotron at localnet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 May 2001 8:44 AM
> To: EUforum
> Subject: RE: Solaris ?
>
>
> Robert Craig wrote:
> > UNIX is not like Windows.
> > There are many different flavors produced by
> > many different companies or groups, and they
> > are all somewhat incompatible. On top of that
> > there are many different hardware platforms for UNIX.
>
> Bernie Ryan wrote:
> The include files have to do more with different hardware
> than differnt versions of UNIX.
> UNIX was written in "C" because it is a portable langauge so
> it could be moved easily across platforms. In fact UNIX was
> invented by the same programers who wrote "C". If Euphoria is
> written in standard "C" then it only needs to be compiled on
> the "C" compiler written for that platform. The real problem
> may be that Euphoria is not written in "C" that is portable.
Hi Bernie,
you may be right, however my experiences in porting between Unixes and
writing for various flavors of Unix (AIX, Solaris, HUX, System V (Olivetti
sub-flavor), Unixware, SCO, Linux, Coherent and Digital) leads me to agree
more with Robert. As the adage goes "If you've seen one Unix, you've seen
one Unix".
Not only do hardware (big-endian vs. little-endian) issues hit you, but the
core system calls are often implemented ever so slightly differently.
Sometimes it may be that functionality is not supported, or is only
partially supported, other times the same system call name has totally
different effects, and other times there are side-effects (documented and
undocumented) that trip you up. Not to mention the totally unique
"extensions" that are implemented, which are often hard to port to other
flavors.
The big trouble is that most of the functions are identical in all flavors,
and this often leads you into a false sense of security before you get the
good news dished up to you.
-----------
cheers,
Derek Parnell
Senior Design Engineer
Global Technology Australasia Ltd
dparnell at glotec.com.au
