Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #1727Re: Some things that pointer-less languages can't do efficiently
From: Richard A. O'Keefe
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 1990 05:41
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 1990 05:41
21 lines
1558 bytes
1558 bytes
In article <65642@lanl.gov>, jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > Flipping links (with the 'aliased' attribute on) has the same semantics > as flipping pointers, _nearly_ the same syntax, and most probably the > same internal implementation. Jim Giles is one of the people whose postings I read carefully. But now I am really puzzled. If recursive data structures with the 'aliased' attribute have the same semantics as pointers and very nearly the same syntax, what precisely is the advantage, and in what sense have pointers been eliminated? Is the claim that undeclared aliasing is a Bad Thing? I'll agree, but then recursive structures in Scheme are Bad Things because there is implicit aliasing, although there are no programmer-visible pointers. (Don't run away with the idea that I'm defending pointers. My favourite languages include ML, Scheme, and Prolog. But I do have to say that handling dynamic data structures in C is considerably easier and the code far less "contorted" than in Pascal.) -- Fear most of all to be in error. -- Kierkegaard, quoting Socrates.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3976@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!okReferences:
<10397:Oct1212:55:1090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <65642@lanl.gov>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Some things that pointer-less languages can't do efficiently Message-ID: <3976@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> Date: 15 Oct 90 05:41:18 GMT References: <10397:Oct1212:55:1090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <65642@lanl.gov> Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 21