Re: backup archive format saved to disk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/06 15:11, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 12/12/06 18:06, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
>
>>>> 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 would be if I were, but I'm not. I was relating historically
> how C came to have dominance. Each language has it's own strong
I don't think we're going to agree on this.
> points, or it wouldn't continue to exist. Perl is completely
> unsuited for lots of stuff, but it has a great following.
>
> C came to dominate, because people needed a better systems
> programming language than assembler. Something more portable
> and more easily maintainable. That's all.
>
>>> 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.
>
> No. Pascal has no provision for separate compilation. Pascal is
> defined by Niclaus Wirth's "Report".
You think a teaching language won't be extended with useful
features? Like separate compilation. VAX and MSFT had it in the
mid-1980s and TP had it in v4.0.
> The fact that no reasonable
> Pascal compiler ever sold incorporated a separate compilation
> extension
That's just not true.
Unless you think UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal v[123] the only
reasonable versions of Pascal.
> (IOW, deviated from the definition of the language) is
> an indication that this was a lack in Pascal. You can tell that
> it is not part of the language, because every implementation which
> added that extension had it's own way of doing it.
>
> I wonder what happened to my copy of the "Report"?
>
> Mike
- --
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)
iD8DBQFFgHVoS9HxQb37XmcRArgaAKCdaIqYEE0JsxVov5n3yM2O+POgXwCgwGe/
bD954npzvM4+GMo5aHpGFBY=
=PiQW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: