"Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> Yea. If Java's design philosophy were a valid one, there would never have >> been any reason to move beyond Altair-style programming (ie, entering >> machine code (not asm) in binary, one byte at a time, via physical toggle >> switches). You *can* do anything you need like that (It's >> Turing-complete!). > > Yeah, and I've seen OOP done in C, and it works. It's just awful. I've > even seen OOP done in assembler (Optlink!).
I've seen high-precision PI calculation done in MS batch: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Stupid-Coding-Tricks-A-Batch-of-Pi.aspx And Adam Ruppe did cgi in Asm: http://www.arsdnet.net/cgi-bin/a.out And some massochist did a compile-time raytracer in C++: http://ompf.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1556 Yea, I know that had already been done in D, but D's compile-time processing doesn't suck :)
