Linked by David Adams on Wed 29th Mar 2017 23:14 UTC
General Unix AT&T has a YouTube channel, where a few times a week they post old videos from the glory days. A few years ago, they posted a cool video from 1982 called The UNIX System: Making Computers More Productive. It's worth a watch. There's lots of other gems on the channel. For example, how about an interview with Arthur C Clarke from 1976?
Permalink for comment 642590
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by judgen
by Rugxulo on Fri 31st Mar 2017 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by judgen"
Rugxulo
Member since:
2007-10-09

If I had to write extremely low-level, machine-dependent code, I would certainly prefer to do it in a language like this rather than Assembly!


Assembly isn't necessarily that low-level (esp. with macros and similar high-level stuff). I like assembly, but it is indeed much more error-prone, which can be tedious to double-check. So 3 kb vs. 512 bytes output isn't (usually) worth the minimal savings or time waste. (UPX, FTW!)


Is anyone aware of any other efforts in this direction? (I admit that I am not an expert in esoteric/obscure languages.)


I haven't read the full article yet, but he mentions Wirth's PL/360. He also mentions nested control structures, which makes me think of MASM v6 syntax.

Okay, so that was a short article. I agree that a standard, portable language is better overall than low-level stuff. (I like Wirth languages although I'm unfamiliar with PL/360.) But personally I'm tired of the bloat. (Wirth's _Plea for Lean Software_, anyone?) Well, there are many workarounds, so it could always be worse.

"Other efforts in this direction"? Probably Forth. And Sphinx C--. And maybe even Turbo Pascal (since it had "absolute", Port[], Mem[] even before it had inline asm). Even Modula-2 and Oberon have pseudo-module SYSTEM for low-level stuff like this.

Reply Parent Score: 1