Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Do we really need types in OOPL's?
Summary: An OS is simply a good example of systems programming
Message-ID: <1990Oct16.013446.23602@cbnewsc.att.com>
Date: 16 Oct 90 01:34:46 GMT
References: <736@tetrauk.UUCP> <18261.27131385@qut.edu.au> <45571@apple.Apple.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23

In article <45571@apple.Apple.COM>, lins@Apple.COM (Chuck Lins) writes:
> In article <1990Oct11.004854.11732@cbnewsc.att.com> lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka) writes:
> >Eiffel is an interesting alternative, but has yet to show sufficient
> >maturity (e.g., multiple competitive implementations) and breadth of
> >applicability (e.g., employment as the principal language of a
> >competitive workstation operating system).  
> 
> Since when is the latter a requirement for determining the suitability of
> a language for any particular fitness of purpose? There are numerous
> application domains where language features necessary of writing an OS are
> completely unnecessary.

I was simply giving an example of a large, complex, fairly
general-purpose, commercially applicable systems program in which
performance is typically important.  Has anyone used Eiffel in such a
program?


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.