[nomenclature] systems language

[so]

C doesn't have scope mechanism (constructor/destructor) either, though it  
is a great tool.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:10:05 +0300, Steven Wawryk <stevenw at acres.com.au>  
wrote:

>
> To me it means that it can be used for applications on platforms that  
> provide no operating system support, for example tightly embedded  
> applications or writing an operating system.  This implies that the  
> language run-time (or at least the parts of it that need operating  
> system support) is unavailable, so as much hardware interfacing and  
> resource management as are needed by the application need to be written  
> for the purpose.
>
> C and C++ qualify.  I'm new to D and still learning about it, but with  
> the deprecation of scoped classes and delete, I'm not sure that D  
> qualifies.
>
>
> On 14/10/10 23:00, 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/