6 ms·

Borland's PASCAL did it on the IBM PC. And which modern C compiler fits into 64KB? Even TCC needs 100KB. But that's beside the point. No machine of the last 36

Borland's PASCAL did it on the IBM PC. And which modern C compiler fits into 64KB? Even TCC needs 100KB. But that's beside the point. No machine of the last 36 (I'll push my chances, 40) years needs to fit a compiler in 64KB.

atherton94027 3mo ago
Pascal had pointers? They could be `nil` too https://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/ref/refse15.html https://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/ref/refse15.html
- Parodper 3mo ago
  The thread talked about sum types, which apparently appeared on ALGOL; although I don't know how much memory did an ALGOL compiler need.
lelanthran 3mo ago
> Borland's PASCAL did it on the IBM PC. That's famously a single-pass compiler. Rust is famously unable to compile in a single pass. It is not possible to make a borrow-checking language that compiles in a single pass. > No machine of the last 36 (I'll push my chances, 40) years needs to fit a compiler in 64KB. Exactly - that's why C is what it is: it wasn't a mistake, they were working under the constraints of the time. My original comment (that you appeared to disagree with) said specifically "Remember where C came from and why it was designed the way it was." Let me ELI5 it for you: It was specifically designed to emit assembly in a single pass because of the constraints of the time. WTF does "Hur Dur Rust Goodest!" comments mean in this context?
- Parodper 3mo ago
  > That's famously a single-pass compiler. Rust is famously unable to compile in a single pass. I probably should have replied under the other comment. I was also referring to your > No, I didn't - I asked how sum types were supposed to work in an era of 64KB memory systems. But context got lost between replies. > that's why C is what it is C famously had a big redesign in 1990. The language of today isn't the same K&R printed.

6 ms·

Borland's PASCAL did it on the IBM PC. And which modern C compiler fits into 64KB? Even TCC needs 100KB. But that's beside the point. No machine of the last 36

by Parodper 3mo ago

atherton94027 3mo ago
Pascal had pointers? They could be `nil` too https://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/ref/refse15.html https://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/ref/refse15.html
- Parodper 3mo ago
  The thread talked about sum types, which apparently appeared on ALGOL; although I don't know how much memory did an ALGOL compiler need.
lelanthran 3mo ago
> Borland's PASCAL did it on the IBM PC. That's famously a single-pass compiler. Rust is famously unable to compile in a single pass. It is not possible to make a borrow-checking language that compiles in a single pass. > No machine of the last 36 (I'll push my chances, 40) years needs to fit a compiler in 64KB. Exactly - that's why C is what it is: it wasn't a mistake, they were working under the constraints of the time. My original comment (that you appeared to disagree with) said specifically "Remember where C came from and why it was designed the way it was." Let me ELI5 it for you: It was specifically designed to emit assembly in a single pass because of the constraints of the time. WTF does "Hur Dur Rust Goodest!" comments mean in this context?
- Parodper 3mo ago
  > That's famously a single-pass compiler. Rust is famously unable to compile in a single pass. I probably should have replied under the other comment. I was also referring to your > No, I didn't - I asked how sum types were supposed to work in an era of 64KB memory systems. But context got lost between replies. > that's why C is what it is C famously had a big redesign in 1990. The language of today isn't the same K&R printed.