linkers - next frontier?

[Dick Dunn]

>From:  Mike Caplinger <mike at RICE.ARPA>
>
>I can't believe that somebody is proposing ANOTHER standard that imposes a
>6-character uniqueness limit on external names!  How much longer are we
>going to be stuck with somebody's 1960s linker implementation choice?

(This was in reference to the developing C standard.)  I agree that it's
about time to tackle problems with lame-brain linkers!  Short names is only
one of a whole raft of problems we've got with <most> present-day linkers.
I suspect that a lot of the difficulty in getting language systems which
provide a reasonable module facility lies with linkers.  If you want a
language to flourish, you need separate compilation and the ability to link
with routines written in other languages.  (Yes, that was a bit of a rash
generalization.  Spare me the flames, please.)  That means you either have
to make do with the existing linker (which quite likely  has NO provision
whatsoever for cross-checking interfaces at link time) or write your own
linker.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
	...Are you making this up as you go along?