> In article <linux.kernel.7IcPAeD1w-B@khms.westfalen.de>,
> Kai Henningsen <kaih@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
> >o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s (david parsons) wrote on 09.06.99 in
> ><7jm8sc$lsk@pell.pell.portland.or.us>:
>
> >The Library Subcommittee Chair was a certain P. J. Plauger.
>
> Who, last time I looked, did not think that the C runtime library
> was part of the C programming language. So you seem to be slightly
> confused.
If anything, that would make *him* slightly confused, because no sane
person can doubt that the ANSI C standard *does*, indeed, cover the
library. And "Programming language C" happens to be the name of that
standard.
> >And would you explain just what the relation to Pascal is?
>
> Pascal defines its runtime library as part of the language.
So does every other language I've run across, and I've seen many.
>And
> this is why (a) Pascal is a dead language,
Only when you define Pascal as exclusively the version that Wirth defined.
Well, I guess even that is still used for the original purpose (teaching
programming).
OTOH, I certainly currently earn most of my income by programming a
language *I* call Pascal. And the guys who sold us those compilers seem to
think of this as one of their more important products.
And there's certainly active development on gpc.
I don't know what definition of "dead language" you're using, but it's
certainly not one I'm familiar with.
>and (b) Modula-2 went
> agressively the other direction.
That's probably why I've never seen a book about M2 (including from Wirth)
that didn't define at least some parts of the library.
> Any particular reason why you hoisted up this strawman and chased it
> so vigourously?
*What* strawman? I don't see any.
MfG Kai
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/