On 9/22/2015 8:49 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 09/22/2015 06:31 PM, Jon Elson wrote: > >> So, B was never actually a FORTRAN compiler, just Ken started >> thinking about FORTRAN grammar and within one DAY took off in a >> different direction. By that time (1969 or so) FORTRAN was a really >> old language, and considered way out of date by most universities' >> Comp Sci departments. > > Which is why C started out with a COMPLEX data type...NOT. FORTRAN can > run on a much wider variety of machines than can C. > > C was nothing more than a bare step up from assembly. > > --Chuck >
There is a big difference between "can run" and "does run". I'd wager that C *can* run on anything one could use for any reasonably useful FORTRAN (thus excluding things like the IBM 1410 card oriented FORTRAN compiler, though I am aware of an effort to develop a small C subset compiler for the 1401). The assertion that C was "nothing more than a bare step up from assembly" is just that. An assertion. One with which I disagree pretty firmly. Old-time C can pretty easily handle a COMPLEX data type by defining a simple struct containing two reals (or even ints, I suppose, if one wants to constrain it that way), and a simple set of operations which are passed the address of one or more such structs, returning a real/int or the address of such a struct (for functions). I would expect lots of people did that sort of thing. (Which also goes to show that C is a LOT more than just a "bare step up from assembly"). JRJ
