Re: backup archive format saved to disk

[hendrik@topoi.pooq.com]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 01:27:29PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 08:34:37AM -0500, hendrik@topoi.pooq.com 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)

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.

-- hendrik