Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!news.funet.fi!funic!nntp.hut.fi!cs.hut.fi!arl From: arl@cs.hut.fi (Ari Lemmke) Newsgroups: comp.realtime Subject: Re: RSX -- one of the best? Message-ID: Date: 26 May 91 12:01:00 GMT References: <22847@shlump.lkg.dec.com> <41618@genrad.UUCP> Sender: usenet@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id) Distribution: comp.realtime Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Lines: 19 In-Reply-To: greg@organia.sce.carleton.ca's message of 24 May 91 17:00:15 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: zen.hut.fi In article greg@organia.sce.carleton.ca (Greg Franks) writes: > The *lack* of a C compiler is often considered an advantage in the > context of larger real-time systems (i.e., those with lots of people > working on the same 8-megabyte program). Type checking -- what't > that? :-). Does fortran then do type checking better ? I personally remember project where we used quite large common area ... one programmer of our project had her own ideas how to organize it ;-) No she didn't know how to use 'include'. DEC fortran 'casting' was done with equivalence statements, I remember having 4 statements to program protocols with fortran ;-) > greg@sce.carleton.ca arl // I still like PDP11/23+ & RSX