Differences between version 25 and previous revision of ProgrammingLanguage.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 25 | Last edited on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:35:47 pm | by AristotlePagaltzis | Revert |
| Older page: | version 24 | Last edited on Friday, November 21, 2003 9:24:24 pm | by AristotlePagaltzis | Revert |
@@ -17,9 +17,9 @@
[Java] only barely fits this definition because it abstracts the memory layout away from the programmer (which is in fact its entire point), but is still here because its design is otherwise the same as that of any other machine oriented language.
!!! Systems programming languages
-These languages are designed for low-level software: drivers, OperatingSystems
, game engines, any code that has to go really fast. They are necessarily compiled machine oriented languages and allow quite precise control of the resulting MachineCode.
+These languages are designed for low-level software: drivers, [OperatingSystem]s
, game engines, any code that has to go really fast. They are necessarily compiled machine oriented languages and allow quite precise control of the resulting MachineCode.
<?plugin BackLinks page=CategorySystemsProgrammingLanguages noheader=1 ?>
Strangely, to date they tend to be very "unsafe" languages too. In code written in [C], the systems programming language for [Unix], it's easy to introduce tiny bugs that mysteriously screw everthing up from time to time -- not something you want your OperatingSystem to do. [Modula2] is the exception to this rule.
