Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #79244
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.misc, alt.folklore.computers |
| Subject | Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi |
| Date | 2025-12-16 00:00 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10hq7ek$29cri$6@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <10h175s$2b64m$19@dont-email.me> <mpjfqaFo7f6U3@mid.individual.net> <10h29pm$30833$1@dont-email.me> <10h2am5$2lt7$1@gal.iecc.com> <10h4bmr$3ci5f$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 16:58:03 +0000, Andy Walker wrote: > (b) You're right [of course] about portability, but in 1960 that was > of limited interest. It simply wasn’t practicable back then. The Algol 60 spec ignored the whole I/O issue because it was simply too hard. A few years later, Algol 68 made a brave attempt at tackling it, at the cost of adding great complexity to the core language. Fortran had its own approach, but I’m not sure how portable that really was. It wasn’t until the coming of POSIX that we had a properly platform- independent I/O model that everybody could (be persuaded to) adopt.
Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next | Find similar
Re: polyglot programming, Recent history of vi Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-16 00:00 +0000
csiph-web