22 Sep
2015
22 Sep
'15
7:11 p.m.
On 9/22/2015 8:49 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 09/22/2015 06:31 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
There is a big difference between "can run" and "does run". I'd
wager
that C *can* run on anything one could use for any reasonably useful
FORTRAN (thus excluding things like the IBM 1410 card oriented FORTRAN
compiler, though I am aware of an effort to develop a small C subset
compiler for the 1401).
The assertion that C was "nothing more than a bare step up from
assembly" is just that. An assertion. One with which I disagree pretty
firmly.
Old-time C can pretty easily handle a COMPLEX data type by defining a
simple struct containing two reals (or even ints, I suppose, if one
wants to constrain it that way), and a simple set of operations which
are passed the address of one or more such structs, returning a real/int
or the address of such a struct (for functions). I would expect lots of
people did that sort of thing. (Which also goes to show that C is a LOT
more than just a "bare step up from assembly").
JRJ
So, B was never actually a FORTRAN compiler, just
Ken started
thinking about FORTRAN grammar and within one DAY took off in a
different direction. By that time (1969 or so) FORTRAN was a really
old language, and considered way out of date by most universities'
Comp Sci departments.
Which is why C started out with a COMPLEX data type...NOT. FORTRAN can
run on a much wider variety of machines than can C.
C was nothing more than a bare step up from assembly.
--Chuck