Subj : Re: Do all programming languages use files?
To   : comp.programming
From : Chris Sonnack
Date : Thu Sep 01 2005 01:09 pm

Michael Wojcik writes:

>> Semantics. If its a library, then you could well argue that GPS
>> is built into the language, since there are undoubtedly libraries
>> for that.
> 
> The Standard defines the language; the Standard includes the standard
> library (and no others); the standard library includes file I/O; thus
> the language includes file I/O (for hosted implementations).  Your
> argument is utterly without merit.

0. Community begins with *trying* to see the other guy's point.
1. I have no real interest or opinion on languages having native I/O...
2. ...But I do disagree his argument is *utterly* without merit.

I do see a difference between the syntactical definition of a language
and its, for lack of a better word, "semantic" definition.

Syntactically, there is no difference, in C, between:

	foobinwhiz (stdout, "{1}: {2}, {3}{NL}", lnbr, name, date);
and:
	fprintf (stdout, "%u: %s, %s\n", lnbr, name, date);

"Semantically", there is: one is a standard lib function, one isn't.

And if you good look at the reserved keywords for C, you won't find
fprintf, printf, fputs or any other I/O family members.  Nor will
you find stdout or stdin.

And I would think that the need to say "hosted" implementation when
discussing this makes it pretty clear that there is such a thing as
*valid*, *legal* C with no I/O.

So, utterly without merit?  Nah.

Maybe the original question just needs to be re-framed to include
"native, non-library-based" I/O or similar.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

.