Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Bart Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: question about linker Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 11:59:34 +0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <87plmfu2ub.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87frnbt9jn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <877c8nt255.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20241129142810.00007920@yahoo.com> <20241129161517.000010b8@yahoo.com> <87mshhsrr0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <8734j9sj0f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87ttbpqzm1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 12:59:33 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ac41a7c23ced312f4a6135274646b7ca"; logging-data="1782523"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+A+SvU6xbKmrFP0+/TZX/O" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:eKMsvfECP4yg0ZYyzIQj1WH0bbM= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 3577 On 30/11/2024 03:25, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 30.11.2024 02:28, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Bart writes: >>> [...] >>> I can tell that in my syntax, function definitions start with a line >>> like this ([...] means optional; | separates choices): >>> >>> ['global'|'export'] 'func'|'proc' name ... >>> >>> Which one do you think would be easier? (Function declarations are >>> generally not used.) >> >> I don't care. >> >> Yes, languages than C can have better declaration syntax than C does >> (where "better" is clearly subjective). Perhaps yours does. [...] > > From the various bits and pieces spread around I saw that Bart had > obviously adopted many syntactical elements of Algol 68, and I wonder > why he hadn't used just this language (or any "better" language than > "C") if he dislikes it so much that he even implemented own languages. It needed to be a lower level language that could be practically implemented on a then small machine. Algol68 implementations were scarce especially on 8-bit systems. But I also considered it too high level and hard to understand. Even the syntax had features I didn't like, like keyword stropping and fiddly rules about semicolon placement. As for better languages than C, there were very few at that level. Even C was not so practical: C compilers cost money (I wasn't a programmer, my boss wouldn't pay for it!). There would have been problems just getting it into the machine (since on CP/M, every machine used its own disk format). And by the accounts I read later on in old Byte magazine articles, C compilers were hopelessly slow running on floppy disks. (Perhaps Turbo C excepted.) By the time C might have been viable, I found that my language was preferable.