Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2005-02-09, Jive Dadson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> [C] isn't - it's a portable assembler. > > > > I've heard that many times, but it makes no sense to me. > > I think the point is that C is a low-level, hardware twiddling > language to be used by people writing things like kernel code --
And Python interpreters? > > The fact that C ended up in the rather inappropriate role of > a user-land application language is different problem. In the early 80's, either C was the "appropriate language" or there was none ... and that's coming from someone who wrote a commercial Pascal compiler, runtime support, and debugger. I did it all in C. Pascal, as we all know, was ill-conceived. C++ was a momentous advance, but it intensionally inherited many of C's warts. I've forgotten what we are arguing about, but I'm sure I'm right. J. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
