What exactly do we mean when we say that a program is OS-independent? do we mean that it can run on any OS as long as the processor is same?
For example, OpenGL is a library which is OS independent. Functions it contain must be assuming a specific processor. But ain't codes/programs/applications OS-specific?
What I learned is that:
OS is processor-specific.
Applications (programs/codes/routines/functions/libraries) are OS specific.
Source code is plain text.
Compiler (a program) is OS specific, but it can compile source code for a
different processor assuming the same OS.
OpenGL is a library.
Therefore, OpenGL has to be OS/processor-specific. How can it be OS-independent?
What can be OS independent is the source code. Is this correct?
How does it help to know if a source code is OS-independent or not?
What exactly do we mean when we say that a program is OS-independent? do we mean that it can run on any OS as long as the processor is same?
When a program uses only defined behaviour (no undefined, unspecified or implementation defined behaviours), then the program is guarenteed by the lanugage standard (in your case C language standard) to compile (using a standards compliant compiler) and run uniformly on all operating systems.
Basically you've to understand that a language standard like C or a library standard like OpenGL gives a set of minimum assumable guarentees that a programmer can make and build upon. These won't change as long as the compiler is compliant with the standard (in case of a library, the implementation is standards-compilant) and the program is not treading in undefined behaviour land.
openGL has to be OS/processor specific. How can it be OS-independent?
No. OpenGL is platform-independant. An OpenGL implementation (driver which implements the calls) is definitely platform and GPU-specific. Say C standard is implemented by GCC, MSVC++, etc. which are all different compiler implementations which can compile C code.
what can be OS independent is the source code. Is this correct?
Source code (if written for with portability in mind) is just one amongst many such platform-independant entities. Libraries (OpenGL, etc.), frameworks (.NET, etc.), etc. can be platform-independant too. For that matter even hardware can be spec'd by some one and implemented by someone else: ARM processors are standards/specifications charted out by ARM and implemented by OEMs like Qualcomm, TI, etc.
do we mean that it can run on any OS as long as the processor is same?
Both processor and the platform (OS) doesn't matter as long as you use only cross-platform components for building your program. Say you use C, a portable language; SDL, a cross-platform library for creating windows, handling events, framebuffers, etc.; OpenGL, a cross-platform graphics library. Now your program will run on multiple platforms, even then it depends on the weakest link. If SDL doesn't run on some J2ME-only phone then it'll not have a library distribution for that platform and thus you application won't run on that platform; so in a sense nothing is all independant. So it's wise to play around with the various libraries available for different architectures, platforms, compilers, etc. and then pick the required ones based on the platforms you're targetting.
What exactly do we mean when we say that a program is OS-independent?
It means that it has been written in a way, that it can be compiled (if compilation is necessary for the language used) or run without or just little modification on several operating systems and/or processor architectures.
For example, openGL is a library which is OS independent.
OpenGL is not a library. OpenGL is an API specification, i.e. a lengthy volume of text that describes a set of tokens (= named numeric values) and entry points (= callable functions) and the effects they have on the system level.
What I learned is that:
OS is processor-specific.
Wrong!
Just like a program can be written in a way that it can targeted to several operating systems (and processor architectures), operating systems can be written in a way, that they can be compiled for and run on several processor architecture.
Linux for example supports so many architectures, that it's jokingly said, that it runs on everything that is capable of processing zeroes and ones and has a memory management unit.
Applications (programs/codes/routines/functions/libraries) are OS specific.
Wrong!
Program logic is independent from the OS. A calculation like x_square = x * x doesn't depend on the OS at all. Only a very small portion of a program, namely those parts that make use of operating system services actually depend on the OS. Such services are things like opening, reading and writing to files, creating windows, stuff like that. But you normally don't use those OS specific APIs directly.
Most OS low level APIs have certain specifics which a easy to trip over and arcane to address. So you don't use them, but some standard, OS independent library that hides the OS specific stuff.
For example the C language (which is already pretty low level) defines a standard set of functions for file access, the stdio functions. fopen, fread, fwrite, fclose, … Similar does C++ with its iostreams But those just wrap the OS specific APIs.
source code is plain text.
Usually it is, but not necessarily. There are also graphical, data flow programming environments, like LabVIEW, which can create native code as well. The source code those use is not plain text, but a diagram, which is stored in a custom binary format.
Compiler ( a program ) is OS specific, but it can compile a source code for a different processor assuming the same OS.
Wrong! and Wrong!
A compiler is language and target specific. But its perfectly possible to have a compiler on your system that generates executables targeted for a different processor architecture and operating system than the system you're using it on (cross compilation). After all a compiler is "just" a (mathematical) function mapping from source code to target binary.
In fact the compiler itself doesn't target an operating system at all, it only targets a processor architecture. The whole operating system specifics are introduced by the ABI (application binary interface) of the OS, which are addresses by the linked runtime environment and that target linker (yes, the linker must be able to address a specific OS).
openGL is a library.
Wrong!
OpenGL is a API specification.
Therefore, openGL has to be OS/processor specific.
Wrong!
And even if OpenGL was a library: Libraries can be written to be portable as well.
How can it be OS-independent?
Because OpenGL itself is just a lengthy document of text describing the API. Then each operating system with OpenGL support will implement that API conforming to the specification, so that a program written or compiled to run on said OS can use OpenGL as specified.
what can be OS independent is the source code.
Wrong!
It's perfectly possible to write a program source code in a way that it will only compile and run for a specific operating system and/or for a specific processor architecture. Pinnacle of OS / architecture dependence: Writing things in assembler and using OS specific low level APIs directly.
How does it help to know if a source code is OS/window independent or not?
It gives you a ballpark figure of how hard it will be to target the program to a different operating system.
A very important thing to understand:
OS independence does not mean, a programm will run on all operating systems or architectures. It means that it is not tethered to a specific OS/CPU combination and porting to a different OS/CPU requires only little effort.
There's a couple concepts here. A program can be OS-independent, that is it can run/compile without changes on a range of OS's. Secondly libraries can be made on a range of OS's which can be used by a platform independent program.
Strictly OpenGL doesn't have to be OS-independent. OpenGL may actually have different source code on different OS's which interface with drivers in a platform specific way. What matters is that OpenGL's interface is OS-independent. Because the interface is OS-independent it can be used by code which is actually OS-independent and can be run/compiled without modification.
Libraries abstracting out OS-specific things is a wonderful way to allow your code to interface with the OS which normally would require OS-specific code.
One of those:
It compiles on any OS supported by program framework without changes to source code. (languages like C++ that compile directly into machine code)
The program is written in interpreted language or in language that compiles into platform-independent bytecode, and can actually run on whatever platform its interpreter supports without modifications. (languages like java or python).
Application relies on cross-platform framework of some kind that abstract operating-system-specific calls away. It will run without modifications on any OS supported by framework.
Because you haven't added any language tag, it is either #1, #2 or #3, depending on your language.
--edit--
OS is processor-specific.
No. See Linux. Same code base, can be compiled for different architectures. Normally, (well, it is reasonable to expect that) OS kernel is written in portable language (like C) that can be rebuild for different CPU. On distribution like gentoo, you can rebuild entire OS from source as well.
Applications (programs/codes/routines/functions/libraries) are OS specific.
No, Applications like java *.jar files can be made more or less OS independent - as long as there is interpreter, they'll run anywhere. There will be some OS-specific part (like java runtime environment in case of java), but your program will run anywhere where this part is present.
Source code is plain text.
Not necessarily, although it is true in most cases.
Compiler (a program) is OS specific, but it can compile source code for a
different processor assuming the same OS.
Not quite. It is reasonable to be written using (somewhat) portable code so compiler can be rebuilt for different OS.
While running on OS A it is possible (in some cases) to compile code for os B. On Linux you can compile code for windows platform.
OpenGL is a library.
It is not. It is a specification (API) that describes set of programming functions for working with 3d graphics. There are Libraries that implement this specifications. Specification itself is not a library.
Therefore, OpenGL has to be OS/processor-specific.
Incorrect conclusion.
How can it be OS-independent?
As long as underlying platform has standard-compliant OpenGL implementation, rendering part of your program will work in the same way as on any other platform with standard-compliant OpenGL implementation. That's portability. Of course, this is an ideal situation, in reality you might run into driver bug or something.
Related
The C Standard Library is independent of any operating system and system.
So, why use the input/output functions from the standard library?
Unix-specific POSIX system calls exist. Windows-specific input/output system calls exist.
Don't standard library functions eventually call system calls internally? Is this just for portability?
The API presented by the C standard library is uniform between operating systems, well, uniform provided all the "unspecified" parts of C roughly align (like the size of int).
The implementation of the C standard library is not independent of the operating system. Basically the implementation consists of the compiled source code the provides the API, and that compiled code matches the CPU / machine instruction sets, and possibly other items specific to the hardware bus width, supporting chip sets and other actual hardware details.
So, programming against the C API helps your program be "more portable" but that doesn't mean that any specific implementation of the C API is portable. Finally, there are lots of small details that aren't specified in detail, or are allowed to vary between platforms (like byte order, size of int, and so on). So even a program written against the standard C API might not work correctly on another machine, unless you write code that accommodates and reacts to the parts of the C API that might differ between platforms.
POSIX is basically a standard that eventually became incorporated into most C development environments. It is designed to provide a single API to program against for multiple UNIX platforms for items that lie outside of the core C language. There are POSIX implementations for Windows too, but Microsoft's historical offerings are notorious for not actually working correctly.
Yes, these APIs (if available) are implemented with code that eventually performs operating specific calls, and is presented in "machine code" that is very specific to the CPU instruction set. There are dozens of CPUs out there, and each major platform has its own matching compiler and matching C API libraries, if the C language is available.
The C language and API is there for portability, but portability isn't it's primary reason for existing (and there are lots of small corner cases where the same code isn't portable across all platforms unless it is written a certain way.) The primary reason it's there is not portability, it is because if the language features weren't consistently available across all platforms, then you wouldn't have "one C language" that could be used on multiple machines, you would have "many C-like languages, where each supported item would have to be checked" meaning you might know C on your development platform, but not know C on another platform.
As for the libraries, there are many libraries that might be absent in a typical machine, and when developing, you generally have to use a dependency checker to ensure the library is present (and sometimes the correct functions are available in the library) before successful use of the machine for development. Autoconf, for example, has m4 macros that can be configured to check if a library is present before compiling the programs.
I would like to build an OS some time in the future, and now thinking of some light sketches on how it would be. I have pretty much been coding in C compiled for the Windows environment (and some little Java). I would have to recompile any of my C programs should I want to run it under Linux. So the binaries, the product of compilation, must be different for each operating system. If I design a totally new OS from scratch, for both hobby and academic purpose, without using the Linux kernel or any known base code of an OS, what I understand as to happen is that I cannot compile my C programs with GCC since my OS will not be among its target systems. Here my question written on the title emerges. Thanks in advance for any hints.
It depends. You could easily choose to re-use an existing compiler, such as the immemorial example GCC, and thus you would reap the benefits of an existing compiler. But there are some big provisos that must be cleared up.
Regards of whether or not you choose to build a new compiler, the challenge will remain in porting a C library. You technically can use C without a standard library (which is what the Linux kernel, or any self-hosted example for that matter, has to do, for example) but this is a ridiculous proposition for programs intended to run under an operating system, as most systems impose memory restrictions, etc, meaning that you cannot just have carte blanche in terms of using memory. Thusly, a C library call such as malloc is required.
Since any programs under your kernel (99% of your OS in all likelihood) will need a set of functions to link against, porting a C library is your biggest task. The C library is a huge monolith, and writing your own would be rather silly, especially with many implementations already available, the most well known being GCC's. So, the question you really should be asking is, do you want to write my own version of libc? (The answer is almost always no, and most alternative implementations are for niche use cases.) Plus, if you want to make your OS POSIX-compliant, then you'll have to implement more functions, adding to the hassle.
Whether you write your own compiler for your OS is a minor detail compared to which C library will be included with it. You can always use your own compiler with an already-written implementation of the C library.
My advice to your rather opinion-based question: no. Port an existing compiler such as GCC or clang, and then use that. Plus, that has several advantages:
Compatibility with existing tools and toolchains
A familiar program (no need for your users to learn how to use a new compiler)
They're open source - and in spite of that, you'd be insane to go at it alone. Heck, even Apple integrated two already existing compilers - GCC and clang - into their toolchains rather than do it themselves, and they're a billion-dollar company.
Take a look at this page. It demonstrates how to port GCC to your OS using Newlib as your C library.
No, you can just port an existing compiler. You can even choose an existing executable format, such as ELF, and use your standard GCC + GNU Binutils toolchain. You will need to port the standard library and C runtime, and you will need to write an ELF loader into your operating system.
I suspect the majority of the work will be in porting the C library.
A search turned up this page: Porting GCC to your OS
(1) No, you usually don't have to write your own compiler. Writing a good optimizing compiler can be actually big task which I would better avoid.
But in order to enable writing applications for your OS in some higher level language you will either need to provide
some (2.1) API emulation layer (so that code written and compiled for other OS can be run on your OS)
or you'll have to (2.2) port some existing compiler to your OS
or at least make your OS a new available (2.3) target platform in an existing compiler
or some other option I don't know about
The choices are multiple each with its own pros/cons.
Some examples (other then the obvious GCC already mentioned by #dietrich-epp, #sevenbits) to help you decide which way you want to follow:
(3.1) Free Pascal (see http://www.freepascal.org) compiler can be extended with another target platform
Free Pascal is a 32,64 and 16 bit professional Pascal compiler. It can target multiple processor architectures: Intel x86, AMD64/x86-64, PowerPC, PowerPC64, SPARC, and ARM. Supported operating systems include Linux, FreeBSD, Haiku, Mac OS X/iOS/Darwin, DOS, Win32, Win64, WinCE, OS/2, MorphOS, Nintendo GBA, Nintendo DS, and Nintendo Wii. Additionally, JVM, MIPS (big and little endian variants), i8086 and Motorola 68k architecture targets are available in the development versions
...
Source: http://www.freepascal.org
(3.2) Inferno Operating System (see http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno) has its own application language (see Limbo) with OS specific words, own compiler etc. Applications run in virtual machine (see Dis)
Inferno® is a compact operating system designed for building distributed and networked systems on a wide variety of devices and platforms. With many advanced and unique features, Inferno puts an unrivalled set of tools into your hands...Inferno can run as a user application on top of an existing operating system or as a stand alone operating system...
Source: http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno
(3.3) Squeak (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeak) is a self contained OS with graphics and everything. It uses Smalltalk-80 as the language. Compiler included, applications run in virtual machine (see Cog VM). The VM could be emitted as portable C code and then ported to a bare-bone hardware.
Squeak is a modern, open source, full-featured implementation of the powerful Smalltalk programming language and environment. Squeak is highly-portable, running on almost any platform you could name and you can really truly write once run anywhere. Squeak is the vehicle for a wide range of projects from multimedia applications and educational platforms to commercial web application development...
Source: http://www.squeak.org
(3.4) MenuetOS (see http://www.menuetos.net/) is 64bit OS written in assembly language. Flat Assembler (see FASM) compiler which can emit native binaries was ported to the OS including OS API and is included in basic installation. Later on C library was also ported
MenuetOS is an Operating System in development for the PC written entirely in 32/64 bit assembly language...supports 32/64 bit x86 assembly programming for smaller, faster and less resource hungry applications...Menuet isn't based on other operating system nor has it roots within UNIX or the POSIX standards. The design goal, since the first release in year 2000, has been to remove the extra layers between different parts of an OS, which normally complicate programming and create bugs...
Source: http://www.menuetos.net
(3.5) Google's Android OS (see Wikipedia: Android (operating system)) ported Java Virtual Machine (see Dalvik later replaced by Android Runtime) and provided OS APIs for the Java programming language, reusing existing compilers and IDEs just consuming the produced binaries
Android Runtime (ART) is an application runtime environment used by the Android mobile operating system. ART replaces Dalvik, which is the process virtual machine originally used by Android, and performs transformation of the application's bytecode into native instructions that are later executed by the device's runtime environment...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Runtime
There are many more useful examples available. Whether you have to or don't have to basically depends on the programming paradigm your new OS will introduce. Why you want to build it and how will it differ from the existing ones.
Examples for no are: (3.1), (3.4), (3.5)
Examples for yes are: (3.2), (3.3)
Is it possible to write code in C, then statically build it and make a binary out of it like an ELF/PE then remove its header and all unnecessary meta-data so to create a raw binary and at last be able to put this raw binary in any other kind of OS specific like (ELF > PE) or (PE > ELF)?!
have you done this before?
is it possible?
what are issues and concerns?
how this would be possible?!
and if not, just tell me why not?!!?!
what are my pitfalls in understanding the static build?
doesn't it mean that it removes any need for 3rd party and standard as well as os libs and headers?!
Why cant we remove the meta of for example ELF and put meta and other specs needed for PE?
Mention:
I said, Cross OS not Cross Hardware
[Read after reading below!]
As you see the best answer, till now (!) just keep going and learn cross platform development issues!!! How crazy is this?! thanks to philosophy!!!
I would say that it's possible, but this process must be crippled by many, many details.
ABI compatibility
The first thing to think of is Application Binary Interface compatibility. Unless you're able to call your functions the same way, the code is broken. So I guess (though I can't check at the moment) that compiling code with gcc on Linux/OS X and MinGW gcc on Windows should give the same binary code as far as no external functions are called. The problem here is that executable metadata may rely on some ABI assumptions.
Standard libraries
That seems to be the largest hurdle. Partly because of C preprocessor that can inline some procedures on some platforms, leaving them to run-time on others. Also, cross-platform dynamic interoperation with standard libraries is close to impossible, though theoretically one can imagine a code that uses a limited subset of the C standard library that is exposed through the same ABI on different platforms.
Static build mostly eliminates problems of interaction with other user-space code, but still there is a huge issue of interfacing with kernel: it's int $0x80 calls on x86 Linux and a platform-specifc set of syscall numbers that does not map to Windows in any direct way.
OS-specific register use
As far as I know, Windows uses register %fs for storing some OS-wide exception-handling stuff, so a binary compiled on Linux should avoid cluttering it. There might be other similar issues. Also, C++ exceptions on Windows are mostly done with OS exceptions.
Virtual addresses
Again, AFAIK Windows DLLs have some predefined address they're must be loaded into in virtual address space of a process, whereas Linux uses position-independent code for shared libraries. So there might be issues with overlapping areas of an executable and ported code, unless the ported position-dependent code is recompiled to be position-independent.
So, while theoretically possible, such transformation must be very fragile in real situations and it's impossible to re-plant the whole static build code - some parts may be transferred intact, but must be relinked to system-specific code interfacing with other kernel properly.
P.S. I think Wine is a good example of running binary code on a quite different system. It tricks a Windows program to think it's running in Windows environment and uses the same machine code - most of the time that works well (if a program does not use private system low-level routines or unavailable libraries).
What is the difference between the C programming language and C programming under Linux?
Are the syntax same in both them?
Or is the difference only when you execute the program?
The C language is governed by the ISO approved C standard and it does not take in to account the underlying platform on which you use C. So from the perspective of the language standard there is no difference, and a standard compliant program shall work correctly on both.
However in practical usage one needs to do platform specific things for ex: IPC mechanisms, multithreading, file access and so on which are specific to the platform, such functionality will vary from platform to platform because each will provide functionality specific to itself. Note that such functionality is not covered by the C language standard, so using it makes the program non portable across other platforms.
Linux is a platform that can be used for the development of programs and applications using languages such as C. The only thing is that its supposed to be is its simplicity and one's liking to a particular operating system. Otherwiswe there is no difference in the syntax. It is absolutely same.
There are languages and there are platforms. Popular languages are typically governed by standards (e.g., ANSI). C is a programming language.
Linux, Windows, Android, etc, are platforms (or, specifically, operating systems). Each platform offers a set of libraries (API calls) that you can access to do different things on that platform. System/library calls for file system access, networking, specific windowing/GUI system, etc, can be different on different platforms. So knowing how to "write C on Linux" means you know C and you know a lot of Linux platform calls. Even different windowing systems under Linux can have different API calls.
There are also standards across platforms, such as POSIX, which work to make the library calls the same across different platforms. Although this doesn't deal with most of the disparity between GUI APIs.
The C language programming syntax is defined under the ISO C standard. The resulting execution depends on the compiler used to turn code into an executable program and the machine on which the compile runs (or at least the target architecture it runs for). The results from that compilation will depend on the use of the programming syntax (the code) against the interpretation of that code from the compiler. If the programmer restricts his programming habits to writing conformant C code excluding implementation-defined behavior or undefined behavior, it's resulting executable will behave identically on any platform.
Then you think of it as if there was roughly three "layers" of C implementation you could make: kernel programming, system programming and userspace programming.
Kernel programming is hardware-level programming and usually leverage implementation-defined behavior to interface the hardware world to the software world. They provide a C interface to system programmers. They are different from machine to machine and the architercture resulting from these implementation defines the difference between various OS (ex: window vs linux vs OsX vs MIT exokernel, etc).
System programmers leverage the kernel's (the system's) API to build C standard library (they define the implementation of higher level C standard functionnalities). Ex: glibc and the gnu c compiler (gcc) should be iso C conformant to unambiguous section of the C standard and defines the implementation of implementation-define AND undefined behavior. That layer of implementation is hardware independant (to some extend) since the kernel level constitute an hardware abstraction. But they handle resource from that abstraction layer (ex: RAM or writting to a file on the hard drive or sending a stream of data on an internet socket).
Userspace programmers code the programs that uses the standard API and the compilers to build "usable" pieces of software such as gnome-terminal or i3 windows tiling manager (I can't find an example a C code "user-friendly" running under windows from the top of my head...). Unless these software implementation resort to implementation-define code or undefined behavior code, it should be platform independent.
The answer is simple: There is no difference!
However each operating system has its own API. This API does not depend on the programming language.
Example: The "MessageBox()" function exists in Windows only, not in Linux. It is a Windows-Specific function (available in any programming language under Windows).
There are also some library functions that are named differently in Linux and in Windows.
One example would be the "stricmp()" function (Windows) that is named "strcasecmp()" under Linux. However this is not an issue of the C programming language but of the libraries (.H files and .SO files).
Different operating systems will have different APIs (Application programming interfaces) which can be libraries built for building application software for your specific OS. GNU/Linux has libraries specific to it such as sys/socket.h, linux.h, sys/types.h, etc.
If you compile a program in say, C, on a Linux based platform, then port it to use the MacOS libraries, will it work?
Is the core machine-code that comes from a compiler compatible on both Mac and Linux?
The reason I ask this is because both are "UNIX based" so I would think this is true, but I'm not really sure.
No, Linux and Mac OS X binaries are not cross-compatible.
For one thing, Linux executables use a format called ELF.
Mac OS X executables use Mach-O format.
Thus, even if a lot of the libraries ordinarily compile separately on each system, they would not be portable in binary format.
Furthermore, Linux is not actually UNIX-based. It does share a number of common features and tools with UNIX, but a lot of that has to do with computing standards like POSIX.
All this said, people can and do create pretty cool ways to deal with the problem of cross-compatibility.
EDIT:
Finally, to address your point on byte-code: when making a binary, compilers usually generate machine code that is specific to the platform you're developing on. (This isn't always the case, but it usually is.)
In general you can easily port a program across various Unix brands. However you need (at least) to recompile it on each platform.
Executables (binaries) are not usable on several platforms, because an executable is tightly coupled with the operating system's ABI (Application Binary Interface), i.e. the conventions of how an application communicates with the operating system.
For instance if your program prints a string onto the console using the POSIX write call, the ABI specifies:
How a system call is done (Linux used to call the 0x80 software interrupt on x86, now it uses the specific sysenter instruction)
The system call number
How are the function's arguments transmitted to the system
Any kind of alignment
...
And this varies a lot across operating systems.
Note however that in some cases there may be “ABI adapters” allowing to run binaries of one OS onto another OS. For instance Wine allows you to run Windows executables on various Unix flavors, NDISwrapper allows you to use Windows network drivers on Linux.
"bytecode" usually refers to code executed by a virtual machine (e.g. for java or python). C is compiled to machine code, which the CPU can execute directly. Machine language is hardware-specific so it it would be the same under any OS running on an intel chip (even under Windows), but the details of how the machine code is wrapped into an executable file, and how it is integrated with system calls and dynamically linked libraries are different from system to system.
So no, you can't take compiled code and use it in a different OS. (However, there are "cross-compilers" that run on one OS but generate code that will run on another OS).
There is no "core byte-code that comes from a compiler". There is only machine code.
While the same machine instructions may be applicable under several operating systems (as long as they're run on the same hardware), there is much more to a hosted executable than that, and since a compiled and linked native executable for Linux has very different runtime and library requirements from one on BSD or Darwin, you won't be able to run one binary on the other system.
By contrast, Windows binaries can sometimes be executed under Linux, because Linux provides both a binary format loader for Windows's PE format, as well as an extensive API implementation (Wine). In principle this idea can be used on other platforms as well, but I'm not aware of anyone having written this for Linux<->Darwin. If you already have the source code, and it compiles in Linux, then you have a good chance of it also compiling under MacOS (modulo UI components, of course).
Well, maybe... but most probably not.
But if it does, it's not "because both are UNIX" it's because:
Mac computers happen to use the same processor nowadays (this was very different in the past)
You happen to use a program that has no dependency on any library at all (very unlikely)
You happen to use the same runtime libraries
You happen to use a loader/binary format that is compatible with both.