Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news
From: schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: C as a replacement for assembler (Re: Documenting OO Systems)
Message-ID: <4o5G2erk1@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 9 Apr 91 03:27:36 GMT
References: <20106@alice.att.com> <1991Mar26.191259.14470@i88.isc.com>
	<jls.670217665@rutabaga> <27F4D4BE.716@tct.uucp>
	<jls.670561073@rutabaga> <1991Apr2.175756.12586@visix.com>
	<jls.670709095@rutabaga> <1574@acf5.NYU.EDU> <jls.670817462@rutabaga>
	<1576@acf5.NYU
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Organization: PSU CS
Lines: 14
In-Reply-To: sabbagh@acf5.NYU.EDU's message of 5 Apr 91 16:16:12 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: groucho.cs.psu.edu


In article <1576@acf5.NYU.EDU> sabbagh@acf5.NYU.EDU (sabbagh) writes:
   Finally, I want to point out that the invention of C++, Eiffel and a 
   number of other languages have pointed out the true value
   of C: as a replacement to assembly language! I predict that most future
   languages will compile to C instead to machine language. This is a
   tremendous achievement for the software community: true resuability of
   language and concepts.

The problem with compiling to C is that certain things are impossible
to express properly and/or safely.  For example, modula 3 has
difficulty with garbage collection when the C compiler's optimizer
decides to rearrange or elide code.  There are other things that crop
up, but you get the idea.