Re: xl, xxl, and mxl

At Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:36:28 +1000,
Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 14:32 -0700, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
> > At Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:32:38 +0200,
> > Jose A. Ortega Ruiz wrote:
> > > 
> > > [1  <multipart/signed (7bit)>]
> > > [1.1  <text/plain (7bit)>]
> > > Jeremy Shaw <[email protected]> writes:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > The site is a bit light on details, but it seems like using scheme 
> > > > would bring a whole host of disadvantages -- run-time type errors, 
> > > > non-termination, etc.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Hm. I won't enter in yet another debate of static vs. dynamic typing,
> > > but i don't really see how Make is free from the (potential) drawbacks
> > > you mention (writing a non-terminating makefile, or a non-terminating
> > > program in any language for that matter, seems rather straightforward).
> > 
> > I do not mean to say that make is free of those problems, just that is
> > should be :) On the other hand, make does do better in those two areas
> > than some other langages.
> 
> Make is written in C...as are most programs when you trace back enough.
> 

I am not quite sure I understand the significance of Make being
written in C... 

Jeremy Shaw.
--

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the 
addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone 
the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, 
please advise the sender and delete the message.  Thank you.