Re: Re: Pragmatic Requirements Summary : update

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Brian Hurt wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Eric Merritt wrote:
> 
> >  PL/I is still used just not much. I am pretty sure that one-to-
> > allness wasnt the only thing wrong with PL/1
> 
> No.  But it was the only language I could think of besides C and assembly 
> that has had (more or less) successfull OSs written in it (Multics).  And 
> it was the first language- that I'm aware of- that was advertised as being 
> all things to all people.

Thirty years ago Burroughs was writing OSes in an Algol dialect.  It 
worked very well.  There has also been some OS stuff done in Forth that 
seemed to go ok.

This brings me to an observation: dual stack machines seem to work very 
well.  However, the memory model used in C uses a single stack _and_ most 
of the CPU design over the last 15 years has been focussed on making C 
code run really fast.  Thoughts?

-- Matt

-- 
From my heart and from my hand, why don't people understand my intention?


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/sO0ANB/LIdGAA/ySSFAA/W4wwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pragmatic_lang-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/