Re: [open-cobol-list] Daydreaming about another language to emit

[Ron Norman]

I agree with Michael's comments.
Rewriting OpenCobol to use something other than C as the intermediate
language seems like a waste of time with no benefit.

Cheers,
Ron Norman


> On Oct 4, 2013, at 15:24, Michael Anderson <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On 10/03/2013 10:31 PM, Patrick wrote:
>> "thinking" about what other languages might be better then C for
>> intermediate generation.
> Patrick,
> I write this most respectfully, as I do like your enthusiasm, really!
>
> To put it bluntly, You should fully understand the C language before
> contemplating this change.
>
> At least answer the question:
> Why is every popular VM/Interpreter, compiler and operating system
> written using C?
>
> Philosophically, programming is the ultimate smoke and mirrors! At it's
> lowest level you are simply manipulating an infinate array of 1's and
> 0's, some are machine instructions, other 1's and 0's represent data,
> and the memory addresses of these. Other than writing the machine
> instructions manually, C is the most limitless method to manipulate
> these 1's and 0's. All other popular languages are limited in
> comparison, and rightfully so. C is a Systems Programming language, (not
> recommended for application programming) where the limitations of other
> language are really there to protect the non-Systems Programmer from
> him/her self.  Using C (Not C++) you do not have limitations, or you are
> only limited by your own imagination. Saying C does not support some
> specific syntax is ridiculous, when it is the C code written first that
> allows another languages to have the syntax that they do have. Saying C
> does not support nested functions is like saying that this dang binary
> code does not support nested functions.
>
> The OPP syntax and terminology is implemented by the underlying C code
> that was used to develop OOP in the first place. For example JavaScript,
> everything in JavaScript is an Object, JavaScript functions are Objects
> and they are allowed to be nested. The JavaScript Object is nothing more
> than a C struct containing pointers to memory where you'll find machine
> instructions and data. This is because the underlaying VM was written in
> C. Same example applies to C++, Java, C#, and many others. I don't know,
> some may argue that the Java VM was re-written in pure Java, but then
> you get into the old chicken and egg paradox, and when the debates come
> to an end it is Standard ANSI C (not to be confused with C++ or C#) that
> is the root of all popular languages and operating systems in use today,
> and rightfully so, as of today it is the best tool for the job.
>
> I still see Cobol as one of the best Application Programming languages
> ever. Also I believe that GNU Cobol closely tied to C, with 2.0
> function-id, that we'll be able to emulate OOP. Additionally objects (
> OBJECT-ID, with the syntax of INVOKE, NEW, and so fourth ) could be
> implemented without the requirement of C++, by making use of the ANSI C
> code that was written/used to implement OPP in C++. And as always,
> depending on how you position all the smoke and mirrors, I could be
> completely wrong, or not!
>
> Respectfully,
> Mike.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> open-cobol-list mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-cobol-list