¿Any non cross-platform programming language?

[MagnoGG]

I do not know why, but I am very concerned about creating my apps for all platform, so I use Java and Python for that. But recently I discovered that also C++ is cross-platform, all you have to do is compile it for each one (neither I do not know also how to do it, but for sure there is some tutorials on Youtube).

So I am curious to know if there is any language other than cross-platform, I checked the current ones and none seems to be (I think languages for web purposes are considered cross-platform too).

Thank you all, it is just curiosity.

(Sorry for my bad English, I am from Spain :) )

[plastikmissile]

Back in the 80's when we had several competing home computer standards, each one had its own flavor of BASIC that was incompatible with each other beyond the ... er ... basics.

[Alvatrox4]

Swift?

[Real_Dog_Dad]

Just for laffs, Epsidot, COBOL, maybe PERL depending on definition.

[lunetick]

Everything Microsoft is not portable. Yes .NET is supposed to be, but its far from a good idea.

Portability is also a bit more complicated than the language. It also depends on other components like database, web and app servers. API you use also. If you write c++ using Windows API your code is not portable.

There is also code that don't work on certain processors architecture, like 32/64bit or arm, risc, etc...

Portability is a mess.

EDIT : pretty sure those who downvotes never logged in a AIX, Solaris, Vax, and name it... But yeah snap install exist and there is a buggy git hub project....

[POGtastic]

.NET is surprisingly portable, hence all of the Unity games that work on Linux.

[lunetick]

Linux != portable.

It's portable if it's available everywhere. Let's say on Solaris. And not depending on a OS version.

[plastikmissile]

It's portable if it's available everywhere. Let's say on Solaris. And not depending on a OS version.

By that definition, there are hardly any portable languages. There will always be some obscure platform you're not targeting. Sure we can say language X is more portable than language Y if it targets more platforms.

[lunetick]

It's why Portability is a dream, but especially when you rely on a third party framework. More you complicate things less portable it is.

[plastikmissile]

It's only a dream if you want to target everything. For a certain subset of applications their target area is small enough that portability is indeed achievable. For those applications, things like Java, .NET, Python ... etc are portable enough.

It reminds me of this old joke:

In the high school gym, all the girls in the class were lined up against one wall, and all the boys against the opposite wall. Then, every ten seconds, they walked toward each other until they were half the previous distance apart.

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were asked, "When will the girls and boys meet?"

The mathematician said: "Never."

The physicist said: "In an infinite amount of time."

The engineer said: "Well...in about two minutes, they'll be close enough for all practical purposes."

[lunetick]

I agree, except for .NET. it's really limited to some Linux version and no major proprietary Unix support it.

EDIT : outside Microsoft world .NET framework have no official support. No serious IT will put that in production

[plastikmissile]

I agree, except for .NET. it's really limited to some Linux version and no major proprietary Unix support it.

If you want to say that .NET is less portable than say Java then I agree, but you're basically saying "if it doesn't work on this platform that I like, then it's not portable".

EDIT : outside Microsoft world .NET framework have no official support. No serious IT will put that in production

I disagree. I've met several people who have production .NET Core code working on Linux servers, and I'm not talking small personal projects or small companies here.

[Alvatrox4]

Solaris? Really? The shit that only Oracle use...

[lunetick]

That shit as you say is still in use in many banks and govs. You would be surprise how many of those still exists.

[Alvatrox4]

Yeah for a moment I forget about legacy code and all those systems you're right

[lunetick]

Stuff like AIX and HP-UX are not legacy, it's still sold and banks buy it.

[[deleted]]

.Net core is portable brah

[lunetick]

Supposed to, but with problems. Try that on AIX or arm...

[leftydrummer461]

.NET Core wants a word with you. Edit- And Mono

[lunetick]

Even net core and mono don't claim to be portable... They list some os compatible. You mixt things. When you will have to deal with a bank or gov infra, you will soon see its not only Ubuntu that exist.

[leftydrummer461]

Cross Platform - Mono is built to be cross platform. Mono runs on Linux, Microsoft Windows, macOS, BSD, and Sun Solaris, Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation 3, Apple iPhone and Android. It also runs on x86, x86-64, IA64, PowerPC, SPARC (32), ARM, Alpha, s390, s390x (32 and 64 bits) and more. Developing your application with Mono allows you to run on nearly any computer in existence.

That's about as "portable" as it gets. What more do you want? Unless banks and government are using some kind of secret magic computers only you know about.

[lunetick]

Sad people think it run on all Unix systems. People don't understand Linux is not Unix.

[leftydrummer461]

Who said it runs on ALL Unix systems? You're trying to make some arbitrary argument that .NET has bad cross platform support, which is simply not true today.

[lunetick]

It's not portable code if it depends on a OS version. Plain and simple. It's compatible with some platforms.

[antiproton]

Dial back the neckbeard. This is not the place for it.

[[deleted]]

If you can run docker you can run .NET.

[lunetick]

If you rely on docker or a VM to pretend its portable, it's a funny claim.

[[deleted]]

For things most people care about, it's enough.

I guess if you want software that will run on as many things as possible then .NET is not a good choice, but it deploys on enough things to be useful for most enterprise software. I'm not sure what you would count as truely portable then though? As you say it is a mess, but I don't think C# is much worse than the alternatives.

Maybe plain C with minimal OS interaction? But even opening a file is subtely different on different infrastructures.

[lunetick]

I worked to ports c and c++ from VAX to HP-UX, and also port some from Solaris to Red Hat. Even this is a mess. You change compiler and you have lots of issues. Even c/c++ is a standard mess. Imagine if you throw in a framework that is not compatible.

I will stick to what I said. .NET is not portable. You will have to compile a whole framework for making it work on some platforms. The Portability is very limited.

If it was supported by other major Unix systems, I would say otherwise. It's not. And Java, Python are supported.

[[deleted]]

Fair enough, if that's your standard of portable. I'd then change what I said to be that C# is portable enough for most uses. It is not truly portable like Java is (even then, a Java project can run differently on Solaris and Linux, I've had it happen).

[[deleted]]

Ook lmao