1

I'm not English and I never encountered this saying:

In almost all cases, it is possible and within reason to write completely portable code.

In practice, this means that you shouldn’t assume much about the host compiler (and Visual Studio tends to be the lowest common denominator).

What's the meaning of the "to be the lowest common denominator" in a sentence? That it is a concept that applies for all or something else?

Also: I'm not sure this question answers my problem, I read it but couldn't figure out the above sentence appropriately

Community
  • 1
Marco A.
  • 115
  • oh hello Fumble, read the question thoroughly and you'll find the same link :] – Marco A. Feb 26 '14 at 16:28
  • There are currently 11 answers to that earlier question, several of which explain reasonably well both what the literal meaning of the expression conveys, and what people invariably mean when they (somewhat illogically) use it in everyday figurative contexts. If you couldn't figure out some specific aspect of the usage you could have asked for clarification there in a comment (to any of the answerers whose profiles indicate they're still active on ELU, and who could thus be expected to respond). – FumbleFingers Feb 26 '14 at 16:56
  • 1
    ...or if you just want to know how it's commonly used, in simple terms, that's effectively General Reference. You could look at thefreedictionary definition, for example: the most basic, least sophisticated level of taste, sensibility, or opinion among a group of people – FumbleFingers Feb 26 '14 at 17:00
  • I agree, perhaps I didn't search enough. +1 – Marco A. Feb 26 '14 at 17:43
  • Well, you did in fact look, which is more than some querents do! So please don't feel bad about it if the question gets closed because others vote alongside me. Even a closed question may still be found by future visitors asking about the same thing (not unlikely, given you were in that position! :). Where I see a problem is if it turns out Bib's answer below is actually better than any of the previous ones - even if a future querent ended up on this page first, if it was closed, they might just follow the closelink without ever reading the answer here at all. – FumbleFingers Feb 26 '14 at 17:51

1 Answers1

2

In math, fractions can be converted to other equivalent fractions:

1/2 = 3/6 = 6/12

In each case the denominator (the bottom number) changes, but maintains the same proportional relationship to the numerator (the upper number).

To add two fractions that have different denominators, you need to convert them to equivalents that have the same denominator. For example,

1/3 + 1/2 = 2/6 + 3/6 = 5/6

In the above case, 6 is the lowest common denominator for both 1/3 and 1/2. There are other possible denominators, such as 12, but 6 is the lowest.

This concept has been carried over to non-mathematical fields. In that context, the lowest common denominator generally means the simplest thing that all involved parties have in common that can accomplish a goal.

Consider an example in which several parties are fluent in various languages, but none of them speak the others' native language. However they all speak a little Esperanto. While they might get by with numerous translations of other languages, each language being understood by a few participants, Esperanto is the lowest common denominator.

bib
  • 72,782
  • 1
    I would say that in non-mathematical usages, the term "lowest common denominator" also tends to attach negative connotations to the thing being described. – tobyink Feb 26 '14 at 16:27
  • @tobyink: Absolutely! If anyone actually said "Esperanto is the lowest common denominator" (and according to that linked search, they haven't yet), I think you could safely assume they were being dismissive of the language (presumably because it lacks "history" and richness of expression, etc.). – FumbleFingers Feb 26 '14 at 18:03
  • @tobyink That is often the case. And in my example, the group might be able to communicate much more fluently if they utilized a number of languages and only crudely in the single common tongue, Esperanto. But the latter is the easiest way to cover basic points. Using two or three languages with successive translations might yield a higher level of understanding, albeit at the cost of increased effort. – bib Feb 26 '14 at 20:56