24 Oct 96 08:37, Paul Edwards wrote to andrew clarke:

 ac>> It will be some time before we see sizeof(int) > 4 on a regular 
 ac>> basis.  By that time it may well be less relevant to the majority of 
 ac>> computer programmers than it is today as system-independant languages 
 ac>> such as Java (and languages yet to be formed) become more prevalent.  

 > The implication being that C isn't system-independent?

As far as byte size and endianness issues go, C is system-dependant.  As I
understand it, when Java code is executed the instructions are performed by
a "virtual machine", which allows the code to be executed on any
physical machine that implements the virtual machine instruction set.  This
way, Joe Bloggs can, for example, download a Java application in binary
executable form from the Internet and execute it on their machine without
modification.

 ac>> In the long term portability at a software level will probably become 
 ac>> a non-issue, especially once 64-bit systems become well established.  
 ac>> I am thinking a few decades from now though.  Much of the portability
 ac>>  issues may well be solved at the hardware level than in software.  
 ac>> It seems like the logical place to me.  With any luck it should allow 
 ac>> programmers to get on with more productive tasks, and not have them 
 ac>> worry about the inevitable change in hardware.

 > I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  What do you want the 
 > hardware to do that would make it more portable?  Use the same 
 > instruction set and have the peripherals attached the same way?

Yes.  It is not something you can even attempt to mandate, but I think it
will happen eventually.  Just like desktop computers will become mostly, if
not totally, obsolete, eventually.

 > We can have that now if you want, just mandate that from now on,
 > anyone using a non-80x86 (x >= 3) system will be shot.  BFN.  Paul. 

Sorry Adolf, the solution requires a bit more than that.  

Regards
Andrew

-- randy{at}zws.com

--- Msged/2 4.00