XPost: alt.folklore.computers
From: Peter@Iron-Spring.com

On 1/5/26 20:54, c186282 wrote:
> On 1/5/26 22:27, Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 1/5/26 12:50, John Ames wrote:
>>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 12:33:53 -0700
>>> Peter Flass  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, many systems programming languages have no I/O, the idea
>>>> being that non-OS programs call the OS to do the I/O, and the OS
>>>> interacts directly with the hardware.
>>>
>>> "Systems programming" usually implies implementation of an OS, though,
>>> and IIRC that was the sense that Kernighan was using. You can't excuse
>>> limitations by "oh, the OS handles that" when your program *is* the OS.*
>>>
>>> * (Obviously, there's a certain point in any HLL where Deep Magic has
>>>    to handle interfacing between language constructs and bare metal, but
>>>    the higher up the "threshold of minimum abstraction" is, the less
>>>    suitable it is for systems programming in the first place.
>>>    Of course, there's also the problem where seemingly *any* language
>>>    that's not designed for systems programming will ultimately get
>>>    pressed into service for systems programming  *somewhere...*)
>>>
>>
>> I seem to recall reading that someone once wrote an OS in COBOL.
>
>    I remember that too, from somewhere ...
>
>    COBOL is NOT so great for the purpose, but it CAN
>    be done.
>
>    FORTRAN would have been better.
>

I think early versions of PRIMOS were written in FORTRAN before they
switched to their own language.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)