From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 26072 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2020 23:57:12 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 21 Sep 2020 23:57:12 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2CF109C764; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:57:11 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E44B93D5F; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:56:34 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="x9co44jT"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id EE14C93D33; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:56:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f180.google.com (mail-qk1-f180.google.com [209.85.222.180]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12F5D93D06 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:56:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d20so17281586qka.5 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 16:56:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gzQrtKD0S7GfDWk6m3z8u4S5H2x9aAhIg5nrkt3IuAA=; b=x9co44jTZC4k38f4X3/rRz0Wud9z/ezSAVPcCM3JpLfoRqRmU93TCOefA6eE1O97Of dLtmU7vJWXonm9w+UWv5YL2aCONhVlFf2X7F3uCoEWh4ovyLs8X1XSVk+7Vc5h10cOOz IXX4kDwF0tXQ/nAlXP4Y9svbRE7HMV6QlWxPtGRvQZBBqus9bdnJ8SvkfDFWXnMHacd2 2N4fjn6TURNPVNnH+xJ3RJ1Id8cMr5O1flJwADX+WVd9SsxtdULuXT+7f3rjbv4SJM8g FYNjiXq02EZwR2nfiTIdgrxrhCG2LA4uv5OJeZqzmlU45D8T1UE4OnkhFsYuRFl8YTDA 4aUA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gzQrtKD0S7GfDWk6m3z8u4S5H2x9aAhIg5nrkt3IuAA=; b=XKRWeRYniINxJxtJ/5P15VDTrjJptwzqFnB3CF3JPw0G1maNxVwmf1lVDj6vK3ebqK R1w8FTJQX4ce1gxUYK30s1uXMd+teLrp5Nw82yiuArLkdfY28KHjBw4zYrj9KG3DIEDI hEavcl7L8WQC98MKqOlqDJpLFSwXDlohtcgUiS50ItasPm7iw+rbapmFJfyoJcxq3XOF zt3TL1Q7+M+9JqPWpZ0WguV7HT9Gb0CUIkfQiilCY4tHMc1YYV5X/G2O6qwzl2ox8MGQ OdZavzeuzUlVc8c4jp+LxOudOJwDqt6tLf9+zagLcY0oZfPZDbzIcBpxX29QOijA1zOw oQag== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532FeFNe4C3oGify67zjVn1fyDSVPAiCcZ8yjz+RlEtsO4mk4ZLx qHsPJV1eXTCBR0uCXBhbxv+2urETJRmHcEDIKu5VOSYAUh5YmPxl X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIIqr1RYKPbmVhzYwqMF2mPZgDD/XMjQ2KIzjtBNhljvYi2j6c7WBFetAQoSz13LddyhyRWtbCiAXsHSrzVvA= X-Received: by 2002:a37:64d4:: with SMTP id y203mr2372986qkb.359.1600732585502; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 16:56:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200920230057.C5D1A4422E@lignose.oclsc.org> In-Reply-To: From: John Cowan Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:56:14 -0400 Message-ID: To: Clem Cole Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000023c05505afdb9930" Subject: Re: [TUHS] reviving a bit of WWB X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000023c05505afdb9930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:57 PM Clem Cole wrote: > As the more and more features got added, the focus of the language changed > ... ney Chisnall's 2018 screed: C is not a low level language > > Rereading that made me wonder: if someone retargeted an old compiler (pcc, say) to produce i386 code, how much faster would it run than a VAX? I see that there is a pcc derivative at , but supposedly it has been heavily rewritten for C99 compliance and other things. Not nearly as bad as the pile we got with 'modern' C++ [which I'm loath to > use]. > You should be. It's loathsome. :-) --00000000000023c05505afdb9930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:57 PM Clem Cole= <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
=C2=A0
As the more= and more features got added, the=C2=A0focus of the language changed ... ne= y Chisnall's 2018=C2=A0screed:=C2=A0C is not a low level language= =C2=A0

Rereading that made me w= onder: if someone retargeted an old compiler (pcc, say) to produce i386 cod= e, how much faster would it run than a VAX?=C2=A0 I see that there is a pcc= derivative at <http://pcc.ludd.ltu.= se/>, but supposedly it has been heavily rewritten for C99 complianc= e and other things.

Not nearly as bad as the pile we got with 'modern' C++ [= which I'm loath to use].

You should be.=C2=A0 It's loathsome.=C2=A0 :-)

--00000000000023c05505afdb9930--