list of operating systems that can run C++?

[Christopher Pisz]

Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target
in C++?

My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++,
because...mono. He is making me angry.


--
I have chosen to troll filter/ignore all subthreads containing the
words: "Rick C. Hodgins", "Flibble", and "Islam"
So, I won't be able to see or respond to any such messages
---

[Barry Schwarz]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:27:06 -0500, Christopher Pisz
<nos...@notanaddress.com> wrote:

>Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target
>in C++?
>
>My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++,
>because...mono. He is making me angry.

The language plays no part in how many systems the source code can be
compiled for. It depends solely on whether someone has developed a
compiler/linker/library for those systems.

And the number of systems is also mostly irrelevant. For your office
use, it only matters whether the necessary tools exist for a system
you want to target and whether those tools can be used on systems
available in your development suite.

--
Remove del for email

[Wouter van Ooijen]

Op 29-Mar-16 om 10:27 PM schreef Christopher Pisz:

> Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target
> in C++?
>
> My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++,
> because...mono. He is making me angry.

Challenge him to mention a platform that supports C#, but not C++.

For the reverse you can take any small microcontroller, take a PIC12F200
if he wants a specific example.

For your list, start with all GCC targets.

Wouter van Ooijen

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Christopher Pisz <nos...@notanaddress.com> spake the secret code
<ndeo7j$560$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:

>Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target
>in C++?

All of them.

>My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++,
>because...mono. He is making me angry.

Every other language sits on top of some layer that is either C or C++.
Since C++ can be written to be link compatible with C that means that
C++ targets all the operating systems. The barrier is more one of
tools that target the operating system than it is of languages.

Anything that can run Mono (how do you think Mono itself is built?) is
going to run C++ applications as well because.... guess what? Mono is
written in C. For instance look in the io-layer folder for Mono on
github: <https://github.com/mono/mono>. It's all C code.

Microsoft VS team gave out a shirt one year that said "My compiler
compiled yours" referring to the fact that the C# compiler was written
in C++. They've since got a self-hosting compiler for C# written in
C#, but something has to bootstrap that process and the bottom layer
in that bootstrap is almost certainly C or C++.

About the only "operating system" I can think of that can't be
targetted directly with C++ are those systems where the language is
the operating system. A small embedded FORTH implementation uses
assembly language to bootstrap up a minimal FORTH dictionary and then
the rest of it is all written in FORTH. Open Firmware is an
initiative that works this way.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Firmware>

Another example might be something like a LISP Machine, where
everything is written in LISP.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine>
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

(Richard) legaliz...@mail.xmission.com spake the secret code
<nderds$g8i$1...@news.xmission.com> thusly:

>Anything that can run Mono (how do you think Mono itself is built?) is
>going to run C++ applications as well because.... guess what? Mono is
>written in C. For instance look in the io-layer folder for Mono on
>github: <https://github.com/mono/mono>. It's all C code.

In anticipation of nitpicks:

The bottom layer of the mono runtime is written in C (you'd think
they'd have chosen C++, but whatever).

The mono C# compiler is written in C#, but it needs the mono runtime
to run. To bootstrap everything from source, and not prebuilt mono
runtimes, you need a C compiler.

[Marcel Mueller]

On 29.03.16 22.27, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target
> in C++?

Probably it will be much more difficult to find any recent OS that does
/not/ support C++.

> My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++,

It is more portable because the included class library has more built-in
features (e.g. networking) than the C++ runtime. Although that changed a
bit with C++11 where things like threads are now also part of the standard.

> because...mono. He is making me angry.

Portable != supported. Any C/C++ application that uses more than the
standard library is not really portable. You need to have some platform
specific code. In practice this applies to really any larger
application, although the non portable code might be small.

But with Mono/.NET you can run into the same trouble. E.g. MS will it
make easy to write non-portable code, e.g. as soon as you use WPF or
something like that.

On the other side C++ has the risk of unchecked memory access and UB.
Although this is quite small if you really write C++ code, but in
practice much existing code lacks of C++ since it uses char*, pointer
arithmetic and other bad things all over.

So nearly always the discussion about the right language is just a
fan-boy war.

Personally I prefer C++ too, because I can express many thing in this
language without an ugly work around and without a runtime overhead.
But for commercial development I use C#, because of the better
maintainability and better availability of sufficiently skilled
programmers. The latter is mainly due to the reduced language complexity
and less UB in C# - although the distance decreases. And only a few
people have enough discipline not to use common code anti-patterns in
C++ that are likely to cause UB.


Marcel

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 23:26:47 UTC+3, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target
> in C++?

Processor architectures supported by: GCC https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html
Few and special case things are that you can not target in C++.

>
> My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++,
> because...mono. He is making me angry.

That is so silly. The tongue does not matter. What matters is what is
expressed in it. So better compare what known software is written in
C++ and what is in C#.

[Christopher Pisz]

I agree. Don't want to language war. I am not anti C# or strictly pro
C++, but I find the portability argument to be ludicrous!

I think he somehow defines "portability" differently, and seems to be
stuck somehow that there was a compilation step targeting the platform,
while I view it as the amount of code that has to change.

If I have to compile the same code twice with a platform switch, it is
one mouse click, so I don't get it.

Sure you can take interpreted code from one platform to the next where
the interpreter exists, but that's what 3 or 4 platforms? There are
probably thousands if not millions of pieces of hardware out there that
utilize C++.

I think I am just running into modern language fanaticism. Ironic,
because when I was 20 something, I was the one that had language fanaticism.

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Christopher Pisz <nos...@notanaddress.com> spake the secret code

<ndf2o7$euh$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:

>Sure you can take interpreted code from one platform to the next where
>the interpreter exists, but that's what 3 or 4 platforms? There are
>probably thousands if not millions of pieces of hardware out there that
>utilize C++.

I always chuckle when I install the Java runtime and it shouts "3
billion devices run Java!". The number for C++ is probably something
like 300 billion, but because there is no "C++ SDK" or "C++ Virtual
Machine" from a single company that you have to install, there isn't
any shouting from the rooftops how ubiquitous C++ is in modern
computing.

Where does C++ run? Everywhere.

What runs C++? Everything.

[Johann Klammer]

On 03/29/2016 10:27 PM, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target in C++?
>
> My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++, because...mono. He is making me angry.
>
>

Isn't mono another one of those platforms that emulate a non-existent architecture and
the emulator runs only on a very small subset of actually existing architectures?
(like java?)

[Marcel Mueller]

Mono and Java are essentially the same. Only the ecosystem around them
is quite different. Most sufficiently powerful computer can deal with
both of them.
However, if you talk about "existing architectures" and include embedded
devices, you are right. This will not work mostly. Just because the VMs
are too bulky - for now...

Btw. neither the Mono nor the Java VM emulates any hardware. They are
just JIT platforms where the compiler to assembly language always runs
on the target platform. So the binaries are only an intermediate
language. The important advantage is that this binaries are /not/
platform dependent and, of course, the compiler can use hardware
specific optimization which are impossible when you deliver executables
for a series of platforms like x86 or arm64.

The result is similar than distributing your C++ application as source
code. But without all the drawbacks of compile time source code
incompatibilities and so on.
Of course the intermediate language (or Java Byte Code) is the least
common denominator. You can't do any hacks that won't fit into this
standard (mostly platform specific hacks).

If you look how gcc internally works it does basically the same. It
parses the C++ code into formal execution trees (to some degree
comparable to the Mono IL) and in the second stage the machine code for
the target platform is generated. This is part of the success story of
gcc. If a new language feature is required you only change the first
stage (mostly), then the feature is available on all platforms. If you
port gcc to a new platform you only implement the second stage, and you
get all the language features. AFAIK LLVM works similar (as the name
suggests).

Btw.: the concept of the Transmeta CPUs is similar too. It morphs the
code into platform specific RISC code. The coffin nail was that they
used the (horrible) x86 instruction set as intermediate language.
All modern x64 CPUs operate similar, but they do not write the result
back into memory because the decoder stages are realized in hardware and
operate on the fly.

Btw.2: I am quite sure, as long as C++ code do not use the ugly (and
often platform dependent) reinterpret casts, it could be compiled into
intermediate language too. But probably there is no much existing C++
application around that satisfies this restriction.


Marcel

[Bo Persson]

The supposed JIT advantage really isn't any advantage at all, as a C++
compiler can produce code for any specific system of its choice.

For example, gcc has TONS of options specifically for doing that:

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Submodel-Options.html#Submodel-Options


So, to have optimal performance you either download an executable
specifically optimized for your system, or a JVM with specific
optimizations for your system.

Big deal! :-)


Bo Persson

[Wouter van Ooijen]

Op 30-Mar-16 om 7:07 PM schreef Bo Persson:

The deal is that in order to be able to dowload a version of the app
specific for your system such a version must exits. For N apps and M
systems that means N * M executables.

For the JIT version it requires N 'executables' + M JIT compilers.

Wouuter van Ooijen
(A big C++ fan, but also a big Python user)

[Marcel Mueller]

On 30.03.16 19.07, Bo Persson wrote:
[VM with git vs. C++]

> So, to have optimal performance you either download an executable
> specifically optimized for your system, or a JVM with specific
> optimizations for your system.

Except that the latter has to be done only once for each platform while
the optimized executable has to be build for the cross product of
platforms and applications.

In real live no one does the latter. Even common Linux distributions
target only roughly the hardware. So many new CPU features are unused by
most of the applications. Some exceptions prove the rule, of course.
E.g. the FFTW library comes with optimized assembler code for many
architectures.


Marcel

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Tue, 2016-03-29, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target
> in C++?
>
> My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++,
> because...mono. He is making me angry.

You should be mildly amused and secretly condescending. Problem
solved!

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[Nobody]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 23:52:49 +0200, Marcel Mueller wrote:

> Portable != supported. Any C/C++ application that uses more than the
> standard library is not really portable.

Even code which only uses the standard library isn't necessarily portable.
E.g. anything to do with files (fstream) is bound by whatever restrictions
the OS imposes (the OS may not even have any concept of files).

Realistically, portability isn't a binary state but a spectrum ranging
from "works on almost anything" to "will probably never work on any system
but the author's".

[Johann Klammer]

On 03/30/2016 07:13 PM, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>
> The deal is that in order to be able to dowload a version of the app
> specific for your system such a version must exits. For N apps and M
> systems that means N * M executables.
>
> For the JIT version it requires N 'executables' + M JIT compilers.
>
> Wouuter van Ooijen (A big C++ fan, but also a big Python user)
>

That's nice in theory.
The problem is that, if you try that for any `unsupported'(by MS)
platform, you'll quickly notice that either:

1)You have the wrong version of the runtime/JIT/whatever
2)It's a partial implementation
3)It's bugged

I mean it's a nice marketing spin and all, but if the goal is
portability (as they claim) but it'll only run on windowze,
something has to be wrong, no?

[Ian Collins]

Ah, but it is portable across all supported versions of windows :)

--
Ian Collins

[David Brown]

All supported versions of windows that have the right service packs,
updates, hotfixes, etc., of the right version of the dotnet libraries...

And of course there is the microcontroller ".net Micro Framework", if
anyone actually uses it.

[J. Clarke]

In article <fcdaa56d-59a0-4b61...@googlegroups.com>,
oot...@hot.ee says...

So what known software was written in C in 1968 and what does that fact
tell us about the utility of C?

Comparing a new language with an old language on the basis of "what was
written in it" seems kind of silly.

[J. Clarke]

In article <nderds$g8i$1...@news.xmission.com>,
legaliz...@mail.xmission.com says...

>
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> Christopher Pisz <nos...@notanaddress.com> spake the secret code
> <ndeo7j$560$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:
>
> >Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target
> >in C++?
>
> All of them.

All of them? Really? So tell us where to get a C++ compiler that
targets the Zuse Z4.

> >My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++,
> >because...mono. He is making me angry.
>
> Every other language sits on top of some layer that is either C or C++.

That would be news to Fortran, LISP, ALGOL, COBOL, RPG, APL, Simula,
SNOBOL, Speakeasy, BASIC, PL/I, and JOSS, among others.

C++ is highly portable and targets a great many systems, but don't
overstate the case.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ndi9dc$1raf$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, klam...@NOSPAM.a1.net
says...

Mono is a subset of dotNet and it doesn't "only run on Windows". You
can write C++ code that "only runs on Windows" you know, all you have to
do is access system services that are not present on other operating
systems.

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 26 June 2016 12:10:44 UTC+3, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <fcdaa56d-59a0-4b61...@googlegroups.com>,
> oot...@hot.ee says...
> >
> > On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 23:26:47 UTC+3, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> > > Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target
> > > in C++?
> >
> > Processor architectures supported by: GCC https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html
> > Few and special case things are that you can not target in C++.
> >
> > >
> > > My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++,
> > > because...mono. He is making me angry.
> >
> > That is so silly. The tongue does not matter. What matters is what is
> > expressed in it. So better compare what known software is written in
> > C++ and what is in C#.
>
> So what known software was written in C in 1968 and what does that fact
> tell us about the utility of C?

Nothing was written in C in 1968.
That does tell us that C had no utility in 1968.
Why you asked me to type those tautologies?

>
> Comparing a new language with an old language on the basis of "what was
> written in it" seems kind of silly.

14 years old programming language is not new.

[J. Clarke]

In article <5b912432-f3d1-4b81...@googlegroups.com>,
oot...@hot.ee says...

>
> On Sunday, 26 June 2016 12:10:44 UTC+3, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <fcdaa56d-59a0-4b61...@googlegroups.com>,
> > oot...@hot.ee says...
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 23:26:47 UTC+3, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> > > > Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target
> > > > in C++?
> > >
> > > Processor architectures supported by: GCC https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html
> > > Few and special case things are that you can not target in C++.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++,
> > > > because...mono. He is making me angry.
> > >
> > > That is so silly. The tongue does not matter. What matters is what is
> > > expressed in it. So better compare what known software is written in
> > > C++ and what is in C#.
> >
> > So what known software was written in C in 1968 and what does that fact
> > tell us about the utility of C?
>
> Nothing was written in C in 1968.
> That does tell us that C had no utility in 1968.
> Why you asked me to type those tautologies?

Good, you got the point. Quantity of code written in a language may
reflect the age of the language more than it does the quality of it.

> > Comparing a new language with an old language on the basis of "what was
> > written in it" seems kind of silly.
>
> 14 years old programming language is not new.

Cobol is over 50. Fortran is over 60. APL is 52. C is 44. C++ is 33.
By that standard C# is very new. It's newer than Java and Python, to
name two other popular languages that I for one consider to be new.

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 27 June 2016 12:56:10 UTC+3, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <5b912432-f3d1-4b81...@googlegroups.com>,
> oot...@hot.ee says...
> >
> > On Sunday, 26 June 2016 12:10:44 UTC+3, J. Clarke wrote:
> > > In article <fcdaa56d-59a0-4b61...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > oot...@hot.ee says...
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 23:26:47 UTC+3, Christopher Pisz wrote:
> > > > > Does there exist a list of operating systems/hardware that I can target
> > > > > in C++?
> > > >
> > > > Processor architectures supported by: GCC https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html
> > > > Few and special case things are that you can not target in C++.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My office mate is arguing with me that C# is now more portable than C++,
> > > > > because...mono. He is making me angry.
> > > >
> > > > That is so silly. The tongue does not matter. What matters is what is
> > > > expressed in it. So better compare what known software is written in
> > > > C++ and what is in C#.
> > >
> > > So what known software was written in C in 1968 and what does that fact
> > > tell us about the utility of C?
> >
> > Nothing was written in C in 1968.
> > That does tell us that C had no utility in 1968.
> > Why you asked me to type those tautologies?
>
> Good, you got the point. Quantity of code written in a language may
> reflect the age of the language more than it does the quality of it.

Example about nonexistence of programming language is hardly about
age of it.

>
> > > Comparing a new language with an old language on the basis of "what was
> > > written in it" seems kind of silly.
> >
> > 14 years old programming language is not new.
>
> Cobol is over 50. Fortran is over 60. APL is 52.

What known software is written in those, then? Or are those "too old"?

> C is 44. C++ is 33. By that standard C# is very new. It's newer than Java
> and Python, to name two other popular languages that I for one consider
> to be new.

So what your claim is? I have impression that you claim is that it is silly to
expect that at least something widely known has been written in 14 years
old programming language. The reason is that you for one consider it too
new for that. You seemingly even consider about 21 years old Java and
Python as new. For me tools of that age must be rather mature.

[J. Clarke]

In article <be4c8772-84b7-4d08...@googlegroups.com>,
oot...@hot.ee says...

It is exactly about the age of it. No code was written before it
existed. A little code was written shortly after it existed. More code
was written later.

> > > > Comparing a new language with an old language on the basis of "what was
> > > > written in it" seems kind of silly.
> > >
> > > 14 years old programming language is not new.
> >
> > Cobol is over 50. Fortran is over 60. APL is 52.
>
> What known software is written in those, then? Or are those "too old"?

The entire accounting system at my employer for one. The Fortran is
being ported to C, a piece at a time but the Cobol is doing just fine.
The APL is used for the testing that keeps the other code honest.

That software is managing a portfolio larger than the GDP of Sweden.

Don't assume that the only software that exists is the stuff you find on
github or can buy online. And don't assume that it all runs on PCs and
Linux either.

> > C is 44. C++ is 33. By that standard C# is very new. It's newer than Java
> > and Python, to name two other popular languages that I for one consider
> > to be new.
>
> So what your claim is? I have impression that you claim is that it is silly to
> expect that at least something widely known has been written in 14 years
> old programming language. The reason is that you for one consider it too
> new for that. You seemingly even consider about 21 years old Java and
> Python as new. For me tools of that age must be rather mature.

No, the reasoning is that arguing quanity of code is pointless.

[Öö Tiib]

That all is true but what has it to do with the usefulness of results
of that writing of code?

>
> > > > > Comparing a new language with an old language on the basis of "what was
> > > > > written in it" seems kind of silly.
> > > >
> > > > 14 years old programming language is not new.
> > >
> > > Cobol is over 50. Fortran is over 60. APL is 52.
> >
> > What known software is written in those, then? Or are those "too old"?
>
> The entire accounting system at my employer for one. The Fortran is
> being ported to C, a piece at a time but the Cobol is doing just fine.
> The APL is used for the testing that keeps the other code honest.

You dodge "known". So how we can judge quality of it?

>
> That software is managing a portfolio larger than the GDP of Sweden.

That is perhaps indirect indicator of quality of described software? Not
convincing, sorry.

>
> Don't assume that the only software that exists is the stuff you find on
> github or can buy online. And don't assume that it all runs on PCs and
> Linux either.

I was not about quantity of code lines that exist and run somewhere.
It is perhaps PHP and Javascript that win that field (despite being "young"
by your standards). Quantity is orthogonal to quality.

>
> > > C is 44. C++ is 33. By that standard C# is very new. It's newer than Java
> > > and Python, to name two other popular languages that I for one consider
> > > to be new.
> >
> > So what your claim is? I have impression that you claim is that it is silly to
> > expect that at least something widely known has been written in 14 years
> > old programming language. The reason is that you for one consider it too
> > new for that. You seemingly even consider about 21 years old Java and
> > Python as new. For me tools of that age must be rather mature.
>
> No, the reasoning is that arguing quanity of code is pointless.

You seem to misunderstand my point and fight with a straw man. I was
writing "what is expressed in it" in meaning "what are the best known pieces
expressed in it". It does not indeed matter how lot of (whatever garbage)
code is written in a language. C# may be indeed wins both C and C++
already on that field despite its younger age.

[Scott Lurndal]

=?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <oot...@hot.ee> writes:
>On Tuesday, 28 June 2016 04:59:40 UTC+3, J. Clarke wrote:

>> The entire accounting system at my employer for one. The Fortran is
>> being ported to C, a piece at a time but the Cobol is doing just fine.
>> The APL is used for the testing that keeps the other code honest.
>
>You dodge "known". So how we can judge quality of it?

Good grief. The vast majority of software is bespoke.

[Ghost]

Not assuming that you don't already know, perhaps it is worth mentioning
that the Fortran standard has had a couple of revisions, the latest of
which being called "Modern" Fortran by authors (Fortran 2003 and
Fortran 2008). One notable addition is what the standard calls
/interoperability/ with C, which is a standardized way to link Fortran
code to C code. It is notable that so many Fortran programmers (mostly
nonprofessionals programming academic stuff like myself) are not aware
of the many new additions to the standard, already available in many
compilers.

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 28 June 2016 15:40:20 UTC+3, Scott Lurndal wrote:

That may be true but is irrelevant. We still can't say how good it is,
even if we know that there are huge amounts of unknown software.

Similarly wast majority of what is said in English may be vulgar
nonsense but that does not reduce its usefulness for writing
poetry or scientific papers.

[J. Clarke]

In article <nkttkg$81t$1...@dont-email.me>, n...@spam.net says...

The trouble we are having with Fortran is that we have to train every
new hire on it. It's not something that people know coming in the door
and if they do it's one of those "modern" Fortrans and not the extended
77 which is what runs on the Z. Between that an JCL, it's often a long
time before somebody is productive. As for linking with C, if C
couldn't link with Fortran it would have been a non-starter for us, but
this is IBM software and IBM hardware and however painful it may be,
there's usually a way to get it to work together.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Gee, how times have changed. Fortran was the first language I learned
:) But it seems it's only commonly used where the heavy math is
required. Not as much used for general purpose things like C is.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================