As a general rule if you're reading a technical discussion and every single participant is using a particular phrase in a way that doesn't make sense to you then you should probably do a quick double-check to make sure you're on the same page.
For example, in this discussion about whether C is "portable assembly", you might be tempted to think back to the days of structured programming in assembly using macros. I no longer remember the exact syntax, but programs could be written to look like this:
Assembly? Definitely! Portable? Eh, sort of! If you're willing to restrict yourself to DOS + POSIX and write an I/O abstraction layer then it'll probably run on i386/SPARC/Alpha/PA-RISC.
But that's not really what people are discussing, is it?
When someone says "C is portable assembly" they don't mean you can take C code and run it through a platform-specific macro expander. They don't mean it's literally a portable dialect of assembly. They expect the C compiler to perform some transformations -- maybe propagate some constants, maybe inline a small function here and there. Maybe you'd like to have named mutable local variables, which requires a register allocator. Reasonable people can disagree about exactly what transformations are legal, but at that point it's a matter of negotiation.
Anyway, now you've got a language that is more portable than assembler macros but still compiles more-or-less directly to machine code -- not completely divorced from the underlying hardware like Lisp (RIP Symbolics). How would you describe it in a few words? "Like assembly but portable" doesn't seem unreasonable.
> still compiles more-or-less directly to machine code
There's a lot hiding in "more or less". The same kind of example holds for e.g. C# : https://godbolt.org/noscript/csharp ; if you hit "Compile" it'll give you the native binary. If you write "x+1" it'll generate an add .. or be optimized away. Now does that mean it's portable assembler? Absolutely not.
Conversely there's a bunch of things that people expect to do in C, do in real code, but are not in the standard or are undefined or implementation-defined. As well as things that are present in assemblers for various platforms (things like the overflow flag) which aren't accessible from the C language.
What people actually seem to mean by "portable assembler" is "no guardrails". Memory unsafety as a feature.
> Reasonable people can disagree about exactly what transformations are legal, but at that point it's a matter of negotiation
And a matter of CVEs when you lose your negotiation with the compiler. Or less dramatic things like the performance fluctuations under discussion.
For example, in this discussion about whether C is "portable assembly", you might be tempted to think back to the days of structured programming in assembly using macros. I no longer remember the exact syntax, but programs could be written to look like this:
Assembly? Definitely! Portable? Eh, sort of! If you're willing to restrict yourself to DOS + POSIX and write an I/O abstraction layer then it'll probably run on i386/SPARC/Alpha/PA-RISC.But that's not really what people are discussing, is it?
When someone says "C is portable assembly" they don't mean you can take C code and run it through a platform-specific macro expander. They don't mean it's literally a portable dialect of assembly. They expect the C compiler to perform some transformations -- maybe propagate some constants, maybe inline a small function here and there. Maybe you'd like to have named mutable local variables, which requires a register allocator. Reasonable people can disagree about exactly what transformations are legal, but at that point it's a matter of negotiation.
Anyway, now you've got a language that is more portable than assembler macros but still compiles more-or-less directly to machine code -- not completely divorced from the underlying hardware like Lisp (RIP Symbolics). How would you describe it in a few words? "Like assembly but portable" doesn't seem unreasonable.