Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: naughty Pascal Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 19:56:38 -0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Message-ID: <10jjpdm$p56$1@reader2.panix.com> References: <10jin2s$3lvil$1@dont-email.me> <10jj78r$3sddl$3@dont-email.me> <10jjg7k$5l5$2@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 19:56:38 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="25766"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:80611 alt.folklore.computers:233281 In article <10jjg7k$5l5$2@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >On 06/01/2026 14:46, Peter Flass wrote: >> On 1/6/26 03:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 06/01/2026 03:27, Peter Flass wrote: >>>> On 1/5/26 12:50, John Ames wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 12:33:53 -0700 >>>>> Peter Flass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Actually, many systems programming languages have no I/O, the idea >>>>>> being that non-OS programs call the OS to do the I/O, and the OS >>>>>> interacts directly with the hardware. >>>>> >>>>> "Systems programming" usually implies implementation of an OS, though, >>>>> and IIRC that was the sense that Kernighan was using. You can't excuse >>>>> limitations by "oh, the OS handles that" when your program *is* the >>>>> OS.* >>>>> >>>>> * (Obviously, there's a certain point in any HLL where Deep Magic has >>>>>    to handle interfacing between language constructs and bare metal, >>>>> but >>>>>    the higher up the "threshold of minimum abstraction" is, the less >>>>>    suitable it is for systems programming in the first place. >>>>>    Of course, there's also the problem where seemingly *any* language >>>>>    that's not designed for systems programming will ultimately get >>>>>    pressed into service for systems programming  *somewhere...*) >>>>> >>>> >>>> I seem to recall reading that someone once wrote an OS in COBOL. >>> >>>  From what little I know COBOL looked very like assembler. >> >> Nothing at all like it. Higher-level than C, for example. > >Well I will simply disagree. Business transactions are very simple beasts. I think it's best to think of COBOL as a DSL for business data processing. Sure, one can write a compiler in it...but one can also write a compiler in `sed`. Outside of a satisfying a dare or winning a bet, it doesn't seem like a very good idea. - Dan C.