Walter Bright wrote:
Iain Buclaw wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright ([email protected])'s article
div0 wrote:
There's nothing special about a systems language; it's just they have
explicit facilities that make certain low level functionality easier to
implement. You could implement an OS in BASIC using PEEK/POKE if you
mad
enough.
I suppose it's like the difference between porn and art. It's
impossible to
write a bureaucratic rule to distinguish them, but it's easy to tell the
difference just by looking at the two. "I know it when I see it!"
Also known as the Elephant test: "is hard to describe, but instantly
recognisable
when spotted".
Yeah. I think it's a waste of our time to try and define what a systems
programming language is.
For example, sure, you can write a gc in Java. The problem is, it is not
a useful gc. Ditto for anything else "but you can do that in this
non-systems language, so your rule is wrong."
Did the term "systems programming language" exist before C? I mean, asm
isn't a "systems programming language", it's asm!
Seems to me that it's a market segment term, which just means "competes
with C".
