Rich kids are into COBOL
roeapeterson at gmail.com
Fri Feb 27 15:23:41 CST 2015
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 12:30 PM, Guy Sotomayor <ggs at shiresoft.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
>> On 02/27/2015 06:29 AM, Peter Corlett wrote:
>>> C does support bitfields, but can't take the address of one.
True. Personally, I always found bitfields a bit cumbersome.
>> I suppose that it's unreasonable for a language to support processor instruction set extensions. But APL does a great job of supporting vectors; has a syntax for things such as dot-product, etc. So it can't be that K&R weren't aware of such things.
APL was very interesting, but every implementation I ever used was interpreted, not compiled. It made for some pretty slow running code, even though development was very fast for some things.
In a slightly perverse way, kind of like perl today :-)
>> It seems to me to be very strange that today we're coding in a language that was developed for a PDP-11 minicomputer.
> The frustrating thing for me is not just the instructions but the memory model. Some of the issues (security springs to mind) that
> we're facing today can be solved by *not* having a completely flat memory model. I'm still a fan of tagged memory. ;-)
I'm not convinced that C can't handle tagged memory, but in any case, if what you need is real metal-level speed, well written C is very hard to beat. The ability to include assembler is also occasionally useful :-)
> TTFN - Guy
More information about the cctalk