Re: backup archive format saved to disk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 12/10/06 20:44, email@example.com wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 01:27:29PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 08:34:37AM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>> I meant, the compiler contained a lexical analyser, and there were some
>>> irrecoverable bad blocks on the magnetic tape that contained the source
>>> code for that lexical analyser.
>>> If there was a prospect of reviving the compiler (I suspect it's not
>>> worth the effort except as a historical artifact) fillin in the
>>> missing code would be a very small part of the project. Rewriting the
>>> code generator to generate other than IBM 360 code would involve more
>>> work, as well as rewriting the whole thing in another programming
>>> language so that it can be compiled and used on today's systems.
>>> But to succeed in today's language market, it would probably have to be
>>> transmogrified into some kind of object-oriented Algol 68, which
>>> would be a very different thing.
>> I've yet to see the appeal of OO. Then again I've never seen Algol. I
>> don't do C (too many punctuational snares); ditto perl; ditto bash;
>> machine/assembler isn't portable. To me that leaves Fortran and Python
>> (I don't tend to use the OO nature of python unless I can help it).
> Much of the advantage of OO can be obtained by:
> * strong type checking (yes, really bulletproof strong type checking)
> * garbage collection, so you won't accidentally free storage you really need
> * the ancillary run-time checks you need to make sure you don't break
> the run-time model of the language (such as shecks on subscript bounds)
I assume you are making the point that lots of non-fashionable
languages can do this... Heck, VAX Basic did that in the mid-1980s
> This tends to be enough that run-time errors can be reported at the logical
> level of the panguage you are using, instead of hexadecimal gibberiish.
> C++ does *not* have these advantages.
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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----