meet your new god PL/I

We live in a world where C and C++ are the only game in town as far as compile to platform languages. Java, C# and even scripting languages like Python and Ruby are all garbage collected VM languages that only provide a bandaid to all of C and C++'s problems. There is a solution, PL/I, a very full featured systems, scientific and enterprise language that handles all the issues that C and C++ leave the programmer to work out on his own. Read this comparison between C and PL/I and you'll see its a very serious systems programming language what was and still is ahead of its time:
http://www.uni-muenster.de/ZIV.EberhardSturm/PL1andC.html

(PL/I is pronounced pee-el-one, not pee-el-eye, it stands for "Programming Language One")

>>40
This was true.
Exactly. C's application has moved on. That's a sign of age. You refuse to see it. I don't care: another one to take up with the committee. Not me. It seems like you just don't like the sound of it, and frankly I don't give a shit.

This discussion is over.
Did you mean: lalalalala I can't hear you?

For the record this discussion never started. You've been vague the whole time and you're still being vague. You've never once explained yourself even a little without being prompted at least twice. Hell, you can't even answer a question. If I've failed to understand what you've said it's because you never actually said anything of substance--you've just contradicted things I have said without giving any but vacuous reasons or even attempting to understand what I said (let alone what WG14 has published.)

>>41
Enjoy having the last word.

Enjoy

Go back to the imageboards.

I'll believe it when i see it. Some like
Linux written entirely in [Lisp|ML|Prolog|Haskell] without a hint of C or Asm

>>44
There are Lisp OSes (see Genera as one example).

While C is never really needed, you do need assembly. The best way you can get rid of assembly is to stuff all arch-specific assembly in the compiler, but what's so scary about writting a little assembly? It's what the platform runs on, so it only makes sense that you'll need to use it when certain special, architecture-specific things are not directly supported in the compiler (it might not make much sense to add support for some types of features in the compiler, especially if they're only used a few times in the entire OS).

>but what's so scary about writting a little assembly
C compilers replace 99% of the need for asm
If your language does not do this its not meant for OS development.

writting
back to /b/, please.

>>46
No they don't. I've written a lot of inline asm in my days. It's just needed for platform dependent tasks. I could give you hundreds of examples, but let's try a few simple ones:
1) Do input/output to some port or interface with some hardware.
2) Perform some complex SIMD arith (see: MMX, SSE on x86), and have your compiler generate code which means exactly what you intended the code to do.
3) Write some exception handler setup code (you can't use non-ANSI C extensions here) or write the OS'es exception handling system.
4) Write a task or thread switcher. Alternatively, write a usermode-only fiber(similar to green threads) system.(you have to save all the registers and state and be able to restore them).

(You're not allowed to use someone else's library, or if you really want to use it, you have to prove it didn't use any form of assembly and was written in pure C. Using system calls is also not permitted, unless you can prove they were written in pure C as well.)

I could go on, but I'll leave it at that for now. You can do either of this in C or even Lisp or other languages, but you will need to have something generate the assembly for you, usually you'll have the compiler do it, but sometimes you'll need more precision or the compiler can't generate the exact code you want, so you'll want to write it directly in assembly.

>>48
1) Do input/output to some port or interface with some hardware.
Your OS should offer APIs for this.  (Linux)
2) Perform some complex SIMD arith (see: MMX, SSE on x86), and have your compiler generate code which means exactly what you intended the code to do.
Your compiler should offer APIs for this.  (GCC)

>>49
Oh hello there,
Your OS should offer APIs for this.  (Linux)
YOU ARE WRITING THE OS, DID YOU FORGET ABOUT IT?
Your compiler should offer APIs for this.  (GCC)
YOU'RE WRITING THAT TOO.

You can't do anything without using some assembly in one form of the other. At best you can attempt to move everything into the compiler and bloat it up.

>>48
read >>46 again. he said "C compilers", not just "C". so unless you allow non-ANSI extensions, your post is completely unrelated to his.

>>38
You know they run Java and all kinds of things on embedded systems these days.
That is correct, but do all embedded systems run Java? No.
Most of them -- handheld consoles, ICs and pretty much everything else that isn't a mobile phone -- don't because it's the worst thing to possibly use on such a system.
They run code compiled by a C compiler, or at least a compiler for a language invented by the vendor that is so similar to C that there may as well be no difference.