I think that would be too broad.<div>You can write an operating system in Python if you wanted to.</div><div><a href="http://unununium.org/">http://unununium.org/</a><br><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Paulo Pinto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pjmlp@progtools.org">pjmlp@progtools.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I would consider a systems programming language any language that you<br>
can use to build operating systems, even if a little help of assembly<br>
language is<br>
required.<br>
<br>
<br>
"Norbert Nemec" <Norbert@Nemec-online.de> wrote in message<br>
news:i96vcl$11oi$1@digitalmars.com...<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">>A language that is adequate for systems programming.<br>
><br>
> This leaves "adequate" and "systems programming" for definition...<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 10/14/2010 02:30 PM, Justin Johansson wrote:<br>
>> Touted often around here is the term "systems language".<br>
>><br>
>> May we please discuss a definition to be agreed upon<br>
>> for the usage this term (at least in this community) and<br>
>> also have some agreed upon examples of PLs that might also<br>
>> be members of the "set of systems languages".<br>
>> Given a general subjective term like this, one would have<br>
>> to suspect that the D PL is not the only member of this set.<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers<br>
>> Justin Johansson<br>
>><br>
>> PS. my apologies for posting a lame joke recently;<br>
>> certainly it was not meant to be disparaging towards<br>
>> the D PL and hopefully it was not taken this way.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>