[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: backup archive format saved to disk

Hash: SHA1

On 12/12/06 18:06, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> On 12/12/06 16:30, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>> My recollection of the 1980s MS-DOS world was that Turbo Pascal's
>>>> problems were it's small memory model and lack of modules until
>>>> v4.0, by which time C had already taken over.
>>> Who said anything about MSDOS? C took over when CP/M was the rage.
>>> "Modules" are just what I mentioned with respect to "separate
>>> compilation".
>>> The issue with Pascal is that it is completely unsuited to
>>> systems programming altogether, because it has no escape
>>> route from the strong typing, no provision for separate
>>> compilation, and uses interpreted p-code.
>> I'm not a systems programmer, I'm a DP programmer.  Thus, I don't
>> give a Rat's Arse whether my language of choice is good for system
> I wouldn't give you a rats ass for your opinion :-)
> Just kidding.


>> 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

> 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.

- --
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.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: