|[8 earlier articles]|
|Re: Linker ... still useful ? email@example.com (1994-09-28)|
|Linker ... still useful ? Roger@natron.demon.co.uk (1994-09-28)|
|Re: Linker ... still useful ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-09-29)|
|Re: Linker ... still useful ? email@example.com (1994-09-30)|
|Re: Linker ... still useful ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-10-05)|
|Re: Linker ... still useful ? email@example.com (1994-10-06)|
|Re: Linker ... still useful ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-10-07)|
|Re: Linker ... still useful ? email@example.com (1994-10-10)|
|Re: Linker ... still useful ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-10-15)|
|From:||email@example.com (Stefan Monnier)|
|Organization:||Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne|
|Date:||Fri, 7 Oct 1994 13:27:30 GMT|
Mark Stavar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> In this day of high performance machines and cheap disk/memory, why impose
> hard limits, even very large ones. This is certainly a throw-back to the
> above mentioned 70's technology. Fixed table sizes, linear searches,
> etc., are a thing of the past. For too long we have had to endure silly
> limitation, hacking together work-arounds, fighting....
Back to language wars ?
Limitations are "inherent" in array-based languages. Especially those
where dynamic memory management is a pain.
Stefan "in love with GC"
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.