> don't like this genre of programming blog post. These things always amount to premature optimization for portability. They point out that some technique that's been used by millions of programs for decades might not work on every single architecture that's technically compatible with the C standard. So what? The techniques work, and because so many programs use these techniques, they'll keep working.
The article lays out its motivation pretty explicitly, and it runs entirely contrary to your point:
> My purpose is not to discourage you from casting pointers to integers and using the result. The vast majority of the time this works fine and as you would expect. I just think it’s an interesting part of the language, and C/C++ programmers should be aware of potential the trade-offs.
"Details of C implementations are sometimes interesting to think about" is very different from the strawman of "never do this thing because it's not universally portable".
The article lays out its motivation pretty explicitly, and it runs entirely contrary to your point:
> My purpose is not to discourage you from casting pointers to integers and using the result. The vast majority of the time this works fine and as you would expect. I just think it’s an interesting part of the language, and C/C++ programmers should be aware of potential the trade-offs.
"Details of C implementations are sometimes interesting to think about" is very different from the strawman of "never do this thing because it's not universally portable".