Thread: Problem with .write() function

Are we going to clash about the definition of a binary file? It sounds to me that according to your definition, all files are binary files. They just follow a certain byte order, or a certain interpretation format.
According to me, a binary file is a file where you have simply written down the bytes of a variable as-is without any regard to external factors such as endianess.
So I stand by my point that they aren't portable: you cannot expect to write an integer and read it back the same way on all platforms.
But we could write a binary file and read it back in a controlled way, as you suggest. It would work, but it's still not entirely portable. Semi-portable it is, though.

Originally Posted by Elysia

So I stand by my point that they aren't portable: you cannot expect to write an integer and read it back the same way on all platforms.

An MP3 file isn't portable? I feel like we've been down this road before.

I also have a definition for simply writing data to a file without regard for endianness or other portability issues: it's called "stupidity."

Originally Posted by brewbuck

An MP3 file isn't portable? I feel like we've been down this road before.

By my definition of binary file, that is not a binary file because it follows a certain expected byte pattern.

I also have a definition for simply writing data to a file without regard for endianness or other portability issues: it's called "stupidity."

...And that is what I have been trying to say: binary files (my definition) aren't portable. They are semi-portable. That is, it is possible to do it, but it might not be a good idea.
(Which is why I wanted to discourage the write function, which phantomotap complained about.)

I also have a definition for simply writing data to a file without regard for endianness or other portability issues: it's called "stupidity."

Ignorance at best.

By my definition of binary file, that is not a binary file because it follows a certain expected byte pattern.

That is an incredibly stupid definition... the ultimate in stupid definitions. If you dump a "little endian" integer of four bytes it follows an expected byte pattern by definition.

And that is what I have been trying to say: binary files (my definition) aren't portable.

Which is why I wanted to discourage the write function, which phantomotap complained about.

ENOUGH OF THIS! You are either foolish or a liar

It does not matter what definition of "binary file" you use, you can not use "text mode" of the C or C++ standard library IO facilities to create examples of either kind because these facilities are allowed to translate the binary patterns sent to them.

[Edit]
To make the above clearer, you are wrong no matter the definition you choose to use.
[/Edit]

So, which is it?

Soma

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Redefining things will not make you more correct.

No one has provided any better definition.

But enough of this. Regardless of who is correct, I think this discussion has brought to light that problematics behind the original problem, on both sides of the argument.
One can reasonably get an understanding of the pros and cons by reading this, and that is sufficient.