Re: backup archive format saved to disk
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:20:43PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -----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.
Maybe he's a systems programmer? That would tend to affect his
opinions.
>
> > 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.
Implementation-specific features are unavailable for use in any software
that needs to run on more than one implementation.
If that's not what you need, no problem, of course.
Except for the other guy who wants to use your software someday...
-- hendrik
Reply to: