Talk:Software portability

Different Processors

This paragraph makes no sense. It's point is unclear. Any message it is supposed to be purveying is hidden by jargon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bll6969 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed removal

I removed it. First one asked whether things need be recompiled and the answer is, quite likely. POSIX defines an API as explained in its page, not an ABI. As for the one for cygwin, I don't know what citation is needed, that's what cygwin is for, that's what it is. It's explained on its own page. -- gcbirzan^talk 13:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Having originally added them, I think the citations are needed here. Amongst other things Wikipedia is not considered a proper source (WP:CIRCULAR: Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources). However, I'm not one for enforcing guidelines (this one is more honoured in the breach than in the observance anyway) and will do nothing, being quite happy for others to intervene if they want. The article could be left with the citations removed and we can see if anyone has anything to say (probably nobody will notice). I'd comment that the following is more like "Original Research" and speculation: "the answer is, quite likely. POSIX defines an API". Re "As for ... cygwin, I don't know what citation is needed" - one that supports "POSIX-based programs can be compiled for use in Windows by means of interface software such as Cygwin". The Wikipedia Cygwin article probably does imply this, but may not say so explicitly (for someone who's never heard of it). I leave others to do what they think fit. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead Link

The following link is dead as of 2014/08/31 Garen (2007). "Software Portability: Weighing Options, Making Choices". The CPA Journal 77 (11): 3. 84.112.139.98 (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Business Studies

What is portability 41.211.46.201 (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Portability Doesn't Imply High Level

The first sentece says that "Portability in high-level computer programming ...", however I think this definition is not completely correct. It depends on what exactly we mean by high level, but considering e.g. C is mostly classified as a low level language, portability is not necessarily limited to high level software, sometimes it's quite the contrary. C code can be written independently of any libraries and its abstraction, even if low, allows the code to run on many platforms. In fact portable C code will run on many more platforms than a Java program because fistly almost every platform has a C compiler (but only relatively few can run Java) and secondly C code is much more efficient and will run even on devices with extremely limited resource (unlike Java). I myself do such programming so I think this is correct. Perhaps the definition could be reworded. --Drummyfish (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Portiable service now

Advancing grouü 98.175.90.104 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)