[nomenclature] systems language

[Steven Wawryk]

C does allow allocation on the stack.  But of course you're right that 
it doesn't have constructors/destructors, nor classes and OO.  It's 
interesting that device drivers for linux use a (partial) manual 
implementation of polymorphism and require a lot of boilerplate.

so wrote:
> 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/