Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / fpc-other / 2008-12

Re: Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?

4 messages · 2 people ·

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Micha Nelissen
Guillermo Martínez Jiménez wrote 5 lines
I disagree. C is better for write operating systems *by definition*: C was created to write UNIX, Pascal was created to learn good programming techniques. C is low/mid-level language, Pascal is high-level (and Object Pascal is even higher): OS are the lowest software level.

That only proves the first versions of Pascal (in the 80s) were not suitable. Not whether the current-day FPC can't do it successfully.

Also note that Linux depends so heavily on GCC that I can't see it being compiled even by another C compiler. There are so many gcc (part of those are also C99) specific constructs being used to do some things more easily, efficiently (in space and time), and to add more type checking to what C natively has.

Regards,
Micha

Marco van de Voort
to Micha Nelissen

In our previous episode, Micha Nelissen said:

Show quoted text 8 lines
> I disagree. C is better for write operating systems *by definition*: > C was created to write UNIX, Pascal was created to learn good > programming techniques. C is low/mid-level language, Pascal is > high-level (and Object Pascal is even higher): OS are the lowest > software level. That only proves the first versions of Pascal (in the 80s) were not suitable. Not whether the current-day FPC can't do it successfully.

And even if you accept that, it only means we really have to add that Modula2 mode, since M2 _was_ developed for system programming.

Show quoted text 5 lines
Also note that Linux depends so heavily on GCC that I can't see it being compiled even by another C compiler. There are so many gcc (part of those are also C99) specific constructs being used to do some things more easily, efficiently (in space and time), and to add more type checking to what C natively has.

To be honest, I doubt it would be that different if we did it with FPC, seeing how much problems Delphi already has to compile FPC code. Trivialities often, sure, but quite a lot.

Micha Nelissen
to Marco van de Voort
Marco van de Voort wrote 5 lines
> Also note that Linux depends so heavily on GCC that I can't see it being > compiled even by another C compiler. There are so many gcc (part of To be honest, I doubt it would be that different if we did it with FPC, seeing how much problems Delphi already has to compile FPC code.

Indeed, but my point was that even if C was designed for writing operating systems, Linux still uses a lot of extensions (and rightly so, it makes it safer and better). So, if they use extensions for C, then a couple of extensions to fpc would certainly make it very suitable as well for this task.

Micha

Marco van de Voort
to Micha Nelissen

In our previous episode, Micha Nelissen said:

Show quoted text 11 lines
>> Also note that Linux depends so heavily on GCC that I can't see it being >> compiled even by another C compiler. There are so many gcc (part of > > To be honest, I doubt it would be that different if we did it with FPC, > seeing how much problems Delphi already has to compile FPC code. Indeed, but my point was that even if C was designed for writing operating systems, Linux still uses a lot of extensions (and rightly so, it makes it safer and better). So, if they use extensions for C, then a couple of extensions to fpc would certainly make it very suitable as well for this task.

Correct, and discussing what is missing or could be useful is more important then echoing "C is better", "Pascal is better". That was more or less the gist of my first reply.

I really would like to make this point again: the si_pr* stuff might be a good candidate to testdrive FPC in this regard.