Re: backup archive format saved to disk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/06 18:06, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 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
puzzling.
> 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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFf3GLS9HxQb37XmcRAt8tAKDIFtam9Qjr4+CGyaPEhcg7gU88PwCgziwK
5r27RS72Sv+/bVlYQjzGoMc=
=9CIg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: