-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/13/06 15:11, Mike McCarty wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 12/12/06 18:06, Mike McCarty wrote: >> > >>>> programming. In fact, I *like* B&D languages. Why? Not needing to >>>> worry about pointers and heaps and array under/overflows trampling >>>> over core means that my jobs die less often, which is A Good Thing. >>> >>> It certainly is. I'm not trashing Pascal. I liked Pascal. And, if >>> you read what I wrote earlier, I commented that it is, for all >>> who have eyes to see, a superior language /as a language/ to C. >>> It is unsuitable for systems programming for various reasons. >> >> You seem so focused on systems programming, as if the ability to do >> systems programming is an important measure of a language. Very >> puzzling. > > It would be if I were, but I'm not. I was relating historically > how C came to have dominance. Each language has it's own strong
I don't think we're going to agree on this. > points, or it wouldn't continue to exist. Perl is completely > unsuited for lots of stuff, but it has a great following. > > C came to dominate, because people needed a better systems > programming language than assembler. Something more portable > and more easily maintainable. That's all. > >>> It is unsuitable for any large program because it does not have >>> separate compilation, which is a necessity when a program gets >>> over about 1000 LLOC or so. >> >> >> That's *highly* implementation-specific. >> >> For example, VAX Pascal had separate compilation and could link with >> object modules from other languages back in the early/mid-1980s. > > No. Pascal has no provision for separate compilation. Pascal is > defined by Niclaus Wirth's "Report". You think a teaching language won't be extended with useful features? Like separate compilation. VAX and MSFT had it in the mid-1980s and TP had it in v4.0. > The fact that no reasonable > Pascal compiler ever sold incorporated a separate compilation > extension That's just not true. Unless you think UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal v[123] the only reasonable versions of Pascal. > (IOW, deviated from the definition of the language) is > an indication that this was a lack in Pascal. You can tell that > it is not part of the language, because every implementation which > added that extension had it's own way of doing it. > > I wonder what happened to my copy of the "Report"? > > Mike - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is "common sense" really valid? For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFgHVoS9HxQb37XmcRArgaAKCdaIqYEE0JsxVov5n3yM2O+POgXwCgwGe/ bD954npzvM4+GMo5aHpGFBY= =PiQW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
