Re: How Tcl speaks for itself and how Tcl is not spoken for...



On Jun 27, 1:13 am, "Donal K. Fellows"
<donal.k.fell...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Melissa Schrumpf wrote:
Admittedly, anyone who is running and maintaining a DBMS coded in
assembly has either been subject to extreme lock-in, or is severely
deranged.

If they're deranged like that, they'll be subject to a different sort of
"extreme lock-in" involving padded cells...

Donal.

Well, there's always the military. A friend of mine worked for the US
Air Force in the late 1970s. They did inventory, using programs
originally written in Fortran. The machines did not do multitasking.
To compile, you first loaded the compiler and ran the source through.
Then you loaded the assembler and ran the output of the previous pass
through and got an object deck. Then you loaded the program and ran
it, resulting in an output deck. Then you loaded the output deck and
printed it. This procedure was so slow that before my friend got there
they had ceased to modify the Fortran sources and just patched
everything directly in machine language. Not assembler, machine
language.

.