Neither wil either likely be done in ladder logic, but that doesn't make it go away.

It's rather surprising how people can get so very catty about this sort of thing.
I don't like Python, myself. The variables aren't typed, and the data is, which means you have to test the variable to find out what sort of data is in it(otherwise you get an exception). I probably just haven't found the right way of thinking, because the SB-Assembler is written in Python, and so are the Minecraft Forge tools, so it can't be too bad.

I'm not sure how you could do a really complicated thing like an OS in Ladder(I imagine that someone really imaginative will sooner or later, if they haven't already), but I figure that if you found/made a suitable program, you could write PLD code with it. Everything has its niche.

Depending what you'd expect the OS to do, I'd say I've seen many things more complicated than personal computer operating systems done in ladder logic.

I think it's absolutely fine to not like a language, and for a variety of reasons. But to say a language is bad, well, that should be supported by some critique of its features or omissions.

Of course, if a person takes a very narrow view of what a programming language should be like and what all programming languages should be appropriate for, they might come to some odd conclusions.

And if a person is tired or grumpy, well, perhaps we should not engage... I've certainly made the odd intemperate post before.

I want a button so I can "Like" a post so I can come back to it.

I think every language has its place. Lets me think of the saying if you have a hammer in the hand, everything looks like a nail

The C language, for example, is very suitable to write an operating system, but just try to write a financial system in C where the requirements change often.

Most business software that runs on PC compatibles has been written in C or C++. In the early days of the IBM PC, in which some models had no more memory than a Commodore 64, Lotus 123, a "financial system," was written entirely in 8088 assembly language.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

I think a good amount of it is actually written in Delphi.

Ahem...

Lotus 1-2-3 was released on 26 January 1983,...was cleanly programmed and relatively bug-free, gained speed from being written completely in x86 assembly language...

However, don't take my word for it. Fire up your favorite search engine...

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

I went to Wikipedia, and found this, word for word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_1-2-3

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

But Lotus 1-2-3 is not most business software that runs on PC compatibles.

!!!

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

Not now, no. However, during the 1980s, Lotus was THE dominant small business application and had a lot to do with the overwhelming proliferation of the IBM PC in business, as much as Visi-Calc had a lot to do with making the Apple II successful.

The DOS 3.0 version of Lotus was the first version to be written in K&R C, as were all subsequent versions until Windows 3.0, if memory correctly serves me.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!