From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2003-05-14T01:34:08+09:00
Subject: ANSI


On Tue, 13 May 2003, U.Nakamura wrote:

> In message "Re: ext/syck problems"
>     on May.13,2003 15:20:00, <ruby-core@whytheluckystiff.net> wrote:
> | >   * ANSI function definitions/prototypes may cause a problem
> | >     with some old compilers, and
> | 
> | I will spend time tomorrow converting these as well.
> 
> I'm noticed that some ext/digest/* modules already use ANSI function
> difinitions.
> So, I withdraw this proposal.

I think that the whole of Ruby should move to ANSI. I don't know of any
non-ANSI compiler on any platform right now.

I mean, on platforms whose only compiler is non-ANSI, it is likely that
the biggest issues for the use of Ruby on those platforms are:

  1. there's not enough RAM to even run Ruby
  2. no-one cares about Ruby there
  3. no-one uses those machines for anything serious since 1990
  4. and then, woo, there's no ANSI C compiler.

Well, if what I say is not wrong, then the only reason Ruby is still
written in the pre-ANSI style is because Matz likes the pre-ANSI style,
and nothing else?

In any case I can't see any practical reason for that. The ANSI style is
more concise, more direct.



PS: Oh, BTW, even the Radio-Shack Color Computer can have binaries
compiled from ANSI C, at least by cross-compiling (natively I haven't
checked). So if I have one with 512k RAM and OS9/L2, maybe Ruby would run
there if it can stand 16-bit paged memory... well I guess I have other
things to do.

PPS: anyone, name a relevant platform running only a pre-ANSI compiler.

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju