XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: Peter@Iron-Spring.com   
      
   On 1/6/26 03:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   > On 06/01/2026 03:27, 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.   
   >   
   >  From what little I know COBOL looked very like assembler.   
      
   Nothing at all like it. Higher-level than C, for example.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)