From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 14:18:36 +0800 From: "Rogelio Serrano" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc In-Reply-To: <4c83173a84a81a849e4be0cd323cc81f@proxima.alt.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <463D6328.3050909@conducive.org> <4c83173a84a81a849e4be0cd323cc81f@proxima.alt.za> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5b58987e-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 5/6/07, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: > >> i found it easy enough to program in assembly, but i don't think you'd > >> get very far with c. i just don't think you could fit things into memory. > > > > Well 'C compiler hosted on a larger machine, and with that one as a binary > > target' will no doubt come back from someone. And that isn't wrong. > cross compilation is more important than ever. > This makes as much sense now as it did in the 1950s. The assembler > was then just a mnemonic translator and that is just about what Erik > must have been doing. With greater familiarity, you can probably code > the damn thing in binary. > > But is that where we're all going? > i dont think we want to regress. > The point Brucee made and I tried to corroborate is that a good C > compiler, not GCC, nor ANSI's C99 with their need to please more the > designers than the audience, could provide most, if not all the > optimisations one actually needs without making the language a burden > to learn. And without slipping into low-level programming. > i agree up to a point. > In my long experience as a programming language hobbyist, I have yet > to encounter a programming language more suited to this particular > environment. It bothers me that the trend is away from here, towards > extending the C language, where other languages may be better suited > to the newer, larger, more complex applications. > i agree. > In other words, C covers a wide enough scope, from near as damn the > bare-bone machine to sizeable applications. Once you exceed a certain > level, it makes more sense to look elsewhere. I wonder if the GCC > developers have evne considered redeveloping GCC in a language other > than C? > some people actually wanted to write gcc in c++. God forbid. i dont want to be writing system routines with STL. the gcc steering committee have a majority of c++ programmers and they resisted it.