Impressed

[Walter Bright]

On 7/27/2012 7:38 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> True, but I'm kind of shocked that anything 16-bit even still exists. _32-bit_
> is on its way out. I thought that 16-bit was dead _years_ ago. I guess that
> some embedded stuff must use it. But really, I wouldn't expect the lack of 16-
> bit support to be much of an impediment - if any at all - and in the long run,
> it'll mean absolutely nothing.

For those who may not realize it, C++ is simply not suitable for 16 bit systems 
either. It theoretically supports 16 bit code, but in practice, full C++ will 
never work on them.

So, you might ask, why was 16 bit C++ popular on 16 bit MSDOS in the 80's? That 
was C++ before exception handling and RTTI, both of which were unimplementable 
on 16 bit machines. (Yes, you could do it, but the result was practically unusable.)

C and 16 bits go reasonably well together, but even so, the best programs were 
written all in asm.