🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <rob.722177288@dutncp8> rob@pact.nl (Rob Kurver) writes:
>In <142@autro1.UUCP> teig@autro1.UUCP (Oyvind Teig) writes:
>
>>Recursion of occam-2 or -3
>
>>I have seen enough of stack overflow errors to appreciate the lack
>>of recursion in occam.
>
>Recursion + stack-checking -> no stack overflow.
>
...
>
>When I say "stack checking" I mean "stack checking plus expansion if
>necessary".  By checking the stack and expanding it if necessary, you
>remove the stack overflow.

The system you describe does not "remove stack overflow", it simply makes
it impossible for the programmer to deduce the circumstances under which
a stack overflow will occur.

I can just see it now, an airliner on final approach, pilot hits the
undercarriage lever:

"Please wait, stack extension in progress"
....
"Stack extension failed (memory fragmented)"
"Error flag set (please re-boot)"

Get real, OCCAM was designed for programs where it was fairly important
to the programmer to be able to predict how the end system would behave.
Don't ask for OCCAM to have features introduced which break this critical
functionality.

If you want want quicker development cycles and don't mind indeterminate 
behaviour of your system at run-time, fine use C with these kinds of
extensions. Nothing wrong with that, for a certain class of applications
this is a perfectly acceptable programming environment (I use it a lot).
However please don't use such a system to develop software for any 
airliner that I might travel on! (or any other kind of system where failure
is anything other than a moderate inconvenience).


--
   Rob.