Hi Igor,

On 28 December 2010 16:13, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> P.S. i think i know the answer to question why "computer revolution
>>> didn't happened yet",
>>> because every time people inventing something new, they implementing it in C.
>> ...
>> On the other hand, stacking ever more abstractions on top of each
>> other eventually costs an amount of performance that will be noticed.
>
> The key words here is 'on top of' which means an evolutionary approach,
> not revolutionary. Because for revolutionary things, you would use 'instead of' wording.

good distinction, I see.

> Every time you building something on top of C, you inheriting its good and bad traits,
> because you can't escape the semantic model, imposed by C language and its compiler(s).

I've found C to be rather malleable; a possible way of providing one
least complex abstraction over raw assembly. Not comfy, but malleable.

However, ultimately, you will have to talk to the metal. I completely
agree that it is much nicer to talk to the metal from a language
standing on a higher ground. The required compiler should not waste
resources (of whatever kind). Building such a compiler surely is
daunting. Perhaps that is one reason why the "C layer" is still
popular as a target.

Or is it the metal that is shaped in the wrong way? There used to be
Lisp machines ...

Best,

Michael