Perry, Yes my mistake, // is in C99. Seems like yesterday :-) And I didn't mean "port" so narrowly, didn't mean to imply he didn't write an x86 kernel from scratch. And yeah my first x86 was System V, in the mid 80's. Incidentally, while I understand that "C with Classes" preceeded C++, I use the term sometimes to refer to the workable, worthwhile subset of C++ (as subjective as that may be, it's bigger than K&R C). Most of the time, for myself, I write in K&R C plus // for a C++ compiler. Peter
On 8/26/08, Perry E. Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Peter St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Just for the sake of historicity for those less -- chronologically > > enhanced-- than RGB or myself, the joke is attributed to Stroustroup, not > > Thompson. > > > > 1. Ken Thompson wrote B (late 60's). Really minimal. Based largely on > BCPL, > > but minimal, ergo "B". > > 2. Ken wrote Unix, in assembler. > > 3. Dennis Ritchie wrote C (sucessor to "B") to be usably featurefull (you > > can read the entire definition of B in a few minutes, at > > http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/kbman.html, which has been scanned > and > > cleaned up since I last saw it). > > 4. Ken and Dennis rewrote unix together in C. (Torvalds ported the kernel > to > > the x86 architecture, with an open license, unlike earlier ports; Pavel > > Curtis ported X, lots of people subsequently did too many too wonderful > > helpful things, etc) > > > Linus wrote a new POSIX kernel. He did not "port" any form of the > existing Unix kernel. (There were already real Unixes (that is, > descendants of the v7 codebase) that were ported to the x86 when Linux > was born.) > > > > 5. Stroustrup wrote C++ (which in C means, "the sucessor of C", that is, > the > > increment operator; so continues the joking naming convention). The name > > "C++" is something of a joke, and it's sorta funny that it's not "++C" > (give > > you the value after incrementing, instead of before) and it is way more > > featureful than Ritchie's usablility requirement. > > > It started in the early or mid-1980s (I forget which) as "C with > Classes" and then evolved (or some might say metastasized). Originally > it was implemented with a preprocessor in front of C (appropriately > enough called "cfront" IIRC), though the first direct implementations > showed up by the early 1990s. > > > > As of C89 (I think) the // comment delimiter is in C; > > > No. C89 (the first ANSI C) did not have // as a comment character. > > > > I myself am glad to have functions (methods) associated with structures > > (classes), it's great organizationally. However, I have never writeen: > > cout << foo << '\n' > > and I never will, other than to illustrate what I don't do. I have no > idea > > how that looks wholesome in Stoustrup's world view, definitely he has > huge > > amounts of language-designer wisdom which I myself do not, > > > I'm not a fan of C++. Many other old Unix hands are also not fans. C++ > is sometimes a necessary evil, but it is rarely a pleasure. > > Perry > > -- > Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
_______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
