Bliss was Re: DEC program listing

Paul Koning pkoning at equallogic.com
Mon Aug 15 08:12:46 CDT 2005


>>>>> "Huw" == Huw Davies <huw.davies at kerberos.davies.net.au> writes:

 Huw> On 15/08/2005, at 5:40 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
 >>  That sounds familiar, there's Bliss-16 and Bliss-11; one is from
 >> Carnegie-Mellon and compiles on a 10, the other from DEC and
 >> compiles on a VAX.  But they all are Bliss, which is a truly
 >> atrocious language.

 Huw> I always wonder why people think BLISS is such a bad language. I
 Huw> know that many people inside DEC don't like it as they were
 Huw> forced to use it as the new "standard" language but personally
 Huw> BLISS is one of my favorites.

Because it is so easy to write bugs with it, and so hard to find them.

The use of . is quite warped and utterly against high level language
principles.  (The only thing that even comes close is FORTH.)

Watching someone waste several days tracking down a bug (program
running wild) that turned out to be one missing . convinced me to stay
away from Bliss.

     paul




More information about the cctech mailing list