Maybe you should improve your english skills. I was being sarcastic. Next time, please read my email until the end, before hitting the reply button.
One of the Juanjo's requirements for a languange to be considered a systems programming language, is for it to include support for inline assembler. I was just making a point that C fails his definition, because the inline assembler you find in most compilers is a vendor extension to the standard. No one in his perfect mind would say that C is not a systems programming language, but it fails the Juanjo's checkpoint list, hence my reply. -- Paulo "SK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Paulo Pinto <[email protected]> wrote: >> You just ruled out C as a systems language. >> > > No, C is a systems language and fits my definition. > > 1) C need not overlay software written in another language > 2) C allows expression of essential machine independent concepts > > How did inline assembly become a requirement? For machine dependent > code, I can just link C with assembly. > > But it's still easy to nitpick against C. For example, ANSI C cannot > express the family of atomic operations, which one could argue are > essential machine independent concepts.
