🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950926031537.27808B-100000@napier.uwaterloo.ca>,
vluu@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Viet-Trung Luu) writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950926031537.27808B-100000@napier.uwaterloo.ca>
> References: <DFI1rr.LyC@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
> Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 07:23:39 GMT
>
> Org.  : University of Waterloo
>
> On Tue, 26 Sep 1995 kominek@links.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
>
> > The kicker is: why did not IBM (the source of this paper, I gather),
> > heed their own research? They should. The reason why IBM delayed
> > introduction of the PowerPC personal computer is quite transparent.
> > Because they are unable to port OS/2 in a timely fashion. One
> > programmer in the know called it a "big bag of dirt," i.e. a
> > convoluted mess of C and assembly. Viewed from the outside the
> > operating system is wonderful. But on the inside ....

Then the programmer obviously has not seen the source code for Windows NT,
95, or even Word 6. I have seen excerpts - I am amazed it runs.

As far as OS/2 for the PowerPC was concerned, it's a whole different 'Bag
of Dirt' as it were - no more 16 bit OS/2 compatibility. I have been told
that the PowerPC kernel had more in common with AIX than OS/2 for the x86.
The problems that IBM had were with porting the Workplace Shell - the
PowerPC version will have the capability to load extensions and
personalities at run-time. Sounds like Taligent to me...

>
> Okay, C is admittedly far from ideal, especially for large projects.
> However, Modula-2 is also far from perfect. If OS/2 is such a mess, maybe
> the design was at fault. You also have to remember OS/2's 16-bit origins
> -- assembly code was probably necessary.

Arguably it would be less of a mess if it had been written in Modula-2.
>
> What programmers like about C is its power (which is, unfortunately, all
> too often abused), its simplicity, and its consistency (well, sometimes).
> C++ helps in many ways, but it is very different, of course, being an
> object-oriented programming language. However, C++ also manages to
> eliminate one of C's greatest strengths: its simplicity. (SmallTalk is
> much more elegant for pure OOP, IMHO.)

Agreed here - Modula-2 also has power, but you have to know the language
well to get to it within the constraints of a strongly typed language.
Wirth outlined ways to get to the hardware in his books.
>
> The Modula-n programming languages are pretty good. However, they suffer
> in their Pascal heritage. The C-type syntax is much more concise and
> consistent (no flames please). What the world needs is a language that
> offers both simplicity and elegance, along with the ability to
> self-organize and self-document (code, that is). Is it time for a D
> programming language?
>
> - Trung

I think the point is that a language does not have to be concise to be
elegant - I would shy away from calling C concise. "Terse" is a better
word, implying that poorly written C code is very difficult to decipher.
It's harder to write obfuscated code in Modula-2, but having marked some
courses in M2, I see it's still possible.

Jan Walter

--
Facts below, opinions above.
The "unfancy" sig...
//       Centurion Services & Wholesale //
//       "Quality from the Start"       //
//       Jan_Walter@mindlink.bc.ca      //
//       Telefax: (604) 279-1800        //