🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <PCG.92Sep12221620@aberdb.aber.ac.uk>, pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
> 
> For some bizarre reason he thought that new() would not be available
> everywhere, so he avoided its use,

When I read this sentence, I really started feeling old (and I'm just
30...)
    11 years ago, when we first installed TeX, new (and especially
dispose) were not reliably available in many Pascal compilers.
Especially the behaviour of new in the case of memory shortage (ie,
if the heap is full) was almost never correct. Or the heap ran into
the stack and overwrote local variables without any warning. Etc.

At this time, it was a very good decision not to use new.

> I really hope at times that Knuth's TeX just went away. Pascal is
> passe`, the subset he used is too restricted, and literate programming
> may not be that great an idea...

Can you please explain me what this last shot has to do with the
topic? What has literate programming to do with Pascal, or with
Knuth's use of Pascal? Or do you just want to ramble around?

--
Joachim

PS: While I agree with you that Pascal is pass\'e (please, don't write
    pass\'e with an accent grave ;-), I don't think that C would be a
good choice nowadays -- for nearly the same reasons.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joachim Schrod			Email: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de
Computer Science Department
Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany