The Blub Paradox

If Lisp is more expressive than C, why Lisp can be compiled into C and C cannot be compiled into Lisp?

>>17

OpenCL is C89 with hardware extensions.

No, it isn't

OpenCL specifies a programming language (based on C99) for programming these devices and application programming interfaces (APIs) to control the platform and execute programs on the compute devices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL

CUDA supports C++11 partially.

And?

CUDA is non von-Neumann programming language.
NVIDIA's CUDA Compiler (NVCC) is based on the widely used LLVM open source compiler infrastructure.
https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-llvm-compiler

C is often used with compiler extensions.

And?

That includes non-standard extensions and implementation defined code such as iohw.h

C is designed to exploit the hardware for maximum performance and this requires close interaction with the machine(and sometimes inline assembler).

And?

C doesn't have the imaginary restrictions on hardware, it designed for the hardware: not the other way around.

Plenty of hardware-specific non-standard extensions exist. Its not the C committee privilege to decide what extensions are used.

Nothing to do with what I said.

Companies are free to implement their APIs the Embedded C standard is not stopping you to interface with your stack-only harvard 2k page-segmented memory architecture of 23-bit TrollCPU.

As for the rest, what do they have to do with the topic? Absolutely nothing.

The current branch of discussion is about C standards/extensions and portability.