Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:3795 comp.lang.c:24806 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao-gemini!noao!arizona!naucse!sbw From: sbw@naucse.UUCP (Steve Wampler) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: The Fundamental Concept of Programming language X Message-ID: <1868@naucse.UUCP> Date: 1 Jan 90 19:20:38 GMT References: Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ Lines: 25 From article , by jv@mh.nl (Johan Vromans): > In article <1470@mdbs.UUCP> wsmith@mdbs.UUCP (Bill Smith) writes: >> C pointers + dynamic allocation > Allocation is static. Hmmm, I need a little lesson in current terminology. Since C uses stack-based activation records, isn't the allocation of local variables dynamic? I understand what Johan is saying, just wondering how one distinguishes memory management in C from FORTRAN (Ok, the 'old' FORTRANs)? Wouldn't it more appropriate to refer to C has having static sizing with dynamic allocation? FORTRAN then has static sizing and allocation, while LISP, Icon, etc have dynamic sizing and allocation. > Add: > > ICON Goal-oriented evaluation. Dynamic datatypes. > Pattern matching and "fail" concept from SNOBOL. Just to nitpick, it's *Icon*, not ICON - the name doesn't stand for anything. Also, there is no 'pattern-matching' as in SNOBOL, though it can be simulated fairly easily. It's replaced with 'string scanning'. -- Steve Wampler {....!arizona!naucse!sbw}