That is too much to comprehend for some people. They think if a language
is "able" to do something it doesn't matter how many million lines or
knowledge to do that simple thing, and you can simply put "able to do
certain stuff" in that languages feature list.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:08:06 +0300, Norbert Nemec
<norb...@nemec-online.de> wrote:
A language that is adequate for systems programming.
This leaves "adequate" and "systems programming" for definition...
On 10/14/2010 02:30 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:
Touted often around here is the term "systems language".
May we please discuss a definition to be agreed upon
for the usage this term (at least in this community) and
also have some agreed upon examples of PLs that might also
be members of the "set of systems languages".
Given a general subjective term like this, one would have
to suspect that the D PL is not the only member of this set.
Cheers
Justin Johansson
PS. my apologies for posting a lame joke recently;
certainly it was not meant to be disparaging towards
the D PL and hopefully it was not taken this way.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
