[nomenclature] systems language

[Walter Bright]

Iain Buclaw wrote:
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 at digitalmars.com)'s article
>> div0 wrote:
>>> There's nothing special about a systems language; it's just they have
>>> explicit facilities that make certain low level functionality easier to
>>> implement. You could implement an OS in BASIC using PEEK/POKE if you mad
>>> enough.
>> I suppose it's like the difference between porn and art. It's impossible to
>> write a bureaucratic rule to distinguish them, but it's easy to tell the
>> difference just by looking at the two. "I know it when I see it!"
> 
> Also known as the Elephant test: "is hard to describe, but instantly recognisable
> when spotted".

Yeah. I think it's a waste of our time to try and define what a systems 
programming language is.

For example, sure, you can write a gc in Java. The problem is, it is not a 
useful gc. Ditto for anything else "but you can do that in this non-systems 
language, so your rule is wrong."