Re: backup archive format saved to disk
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:26:55AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/13/06 08:07, hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:53:17PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > 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
> > programming. In fact, I *like* B&D languages. Why? Not needing to
> >> ^^^
> >> Bondage and domination? Sounds like what I call police-state languages
>
> s/domination/discipline
> http://catb.org/jargon//html/B/bondage-and-discipline-language.html
>
> > worry about pointers and heaps and array under/overflows trampling
> > over core means that my jobs die less often, which is A Good Thing.
> >
> >> I like pointers and heaps and arrays. They really make it possible to
> >> organise my data in usable form.
>
> All depends on your problem domain. :)
>
> > I hate the way C makes it pretty well
> >> imposible to use these without desperate debugging nights.
>
> Amen.
>
> >> That's why I like p[olice-state languages that make these features
> >> available in a secure and efficient way. Yes, these languages do exist.
> >> In my opinion, the majority of the code in Debian could have been
> >> written more easlily, and more reliably, in one of these languages.
>
> We agree here, I think. C is *way* overused in non-system development.
I think it's overused in system development, too. ONly relatively small
parts of systems need to break the rules of conventional strongly typed
programming. And a decent systems language lets you do that when you
need to, but not by accident.
I think I'm repeating myself.
-- hendrik
Reply to: