Re: Linker ... still useful ?

monnier@di.epfl.ch (Stefan Monnier)
Fri, 7 Oct 1994 13:27:30 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[8 earlier articles]
Re: Linker ... still useful ? jan@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (1994-09-28)
Linker ... still useful ? Roger@natron.demon.co.uk (1994-09-28)
Re: Linker ... still useful ? gnb@bby.com.au (1994-09-29)
Re: Linker ... still useful ? andrew@cee.hw.ac.uk (1994-09-30)
Re: Linker ... still useful ? marks@orb.mincom.oz.au (1994-10-05)
Re: Linker ... still useful ? ok@cs.rmit.oz.au (1994-10-06)
Re: Linker ... still useful ? monnier@di.epfl.ch (1994-10-07)
Re: Linker ... still useful ? baynes@ukpsshp1.serigate.philips.nl (1994-10-10)
Re: Linker ... still useful ? dmason@uwaterloo.ca (1994-10-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: monnier@di.epfl.ch (Stefan Monnier)
Keywords: linker, design
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
References: 94-09-179 94-10-031
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 13:27:30 GMT

Mark Stavar <marks@orb.mincom.oz.au> 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"
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.