It doesn't matter, his description is still the same kind of nonsense in line with having a VM. I get the feeling that he thought the thing he meant to say is actually the thing he said.
Sorry, I don't see that. What he said is clear to me: The C virtual machine does not provide an accurate model of why your code is fast on a modern machine.
He's saying that the abstraction that C provides has deviated significantly from the underlying hardware. Considering the kinds of hoops that modern processor go through, this is a valid point.
And the above should answer the sibling's question, too.
He also said "C runs on many systems with noncontiguous memory segments but presents it as a single contiguous space." That is 100% false. In C, pointers to different objects are different. They're not even comparable. There is no concept of contiguous memory beyond that of a single array. Two arrays are not contiguous.
I'm not aware of an implementation that does that, and it's not required by the standard. A more common solution is to just limit the size of an array to the size of a segment (sizet max would also then be the segment size). If you think the C standard requires crossing segments, what section, what words?
Try reading the part I quoted. I think you're conflating my criticisms with that of someone else. Yes, C abstracts the hardware, and always has. That's the point I made in the first place: its memory abstraction is a prerequisite. Hardware and operating systems provide that to C, in direct contradiction to the comment I replied to (which claims C provides it.)
