Hi, Rick!
I couldn't agree with you more. GPC is a great step forward in a fight for diversity, if it isn't anything else. It would be very nice to have all kernel calls available in GPC via a library, so one could also write system programs in GPC. IMHO GPC is nowadays stable enough to succeed writing system programs, and it is possible that such programs would be more reliable! (cosider only range checking vs. C's dangerous pointers that always shoot somebody in his leg).
Your thinking is enouraging me to attempt writting very system software for Linux in GPC. After all, installing GPC is now as easy as installing .deb or .rpm, isn't it?
I agree with you that stability is much more important than "new" things when writting system-level software.
Have a nice day, Mirsad
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Rick Engebretson wrote:
While trying to learn and exploit the unix (linux) platform, my google searches have turned up ms.net references (for example named pipes or fifos). MS is re-learning unix.
In unix, software is built as small programs (tools) and assembled via scripting languages into executables. Tool instances are managed as "processes" by the OS itself. This script level approach is similar to compiled level classes, polymorphism, encapsulation, etc, of other languages. But of course, scripts are far simpler and more flexible.
Many of these unix tools are quite old, but still useful. For example the cron program is a background job scheduler.
Where modern pascal works so well is in building new compiled unix tools. C is just not an option for most applications programmers.
So I am less concerned with "new" features than I am with stability and clarity. Both GPC and FPC are fantastic contributions to the world's technical community (on the linux platform). The learning process is very long, so stability and clarity are essential.