Re: question about linker

On 30/11/2024 03:25, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 30.11.2024 02:28, Keith Thompson wrote:

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

[...]
I can tell that in my syntax, function definitions start with a line
like this ([...] means optional; | separates choices):
>
   ['global'|'export'] 'func'|'proc' name ...
>
Which one do you think would be easier? (Function declarations are
generally not used.)

>
I don't care.
>
Yes, languages than C can have better declaration syntax than C does
(where "better" is clearly subjective).  Perhaps yours does.  [...]

  From the various bits and pieces spread around I saw that Bart had
obviously adopted many syntactical elements of Algol 68, and I wonder
why he hadn't used just this language (or any "better" language than
"C") if he dislikes it so much that he even implemented own languages.

It needed to be a lower level language that could be practically implemented on a then small machine.
Algol68 implementations were scarce especially on 8-bit systems.
But I also considered it too high level and hard to understand. Even the syntax had features I didn't like, like keyword stropping and fiddly rules about semicolon placement.
As for better languages than C, there were very few at that level. Even C was not so practical: C compilers cost money (I wasn't a programmer, my boss wouldn't pay for it!).
There would have been problems just getting it into the machine (since on CP/M, every machine used its own disk format). And by the accounts I read later on in old Byte magazine articles, C compilers were hopelessly slow running on floppy disks. (Perhaps Turbo C excepted.)
By the time C might have been viable, I found that my language was preferable.