USERECGF@LNCC.BITNET (Eduardo Cavalcanti Gomes Ferreira) (04/25/91)
I think you are all missing the point. Neither Assembler is better nor C. The point is that you use any of them for a particular use. I think C is a good language and, dispite its 'uglyness', is a wonderful way of accessing system features from a HLL language. I used it very much when I worked with UNIX and now I use much Assembler to work with IBM. It's just the best choice for the best moment. Eduardo Ferreira/
phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) (04/26/91)
USERECGF@LNCC.BITNET (Eduardo Cavalcanti Gomes Ferreira) writes: >I think you are all missing the point. Neither Assembler is better nor C. >The point is that you use any of them for a particular use. I think C is >a good language and, dispite its 'uglyness', is a wonderful way of accessing >system features from a HLL language. >I used it very much when I worked with UNIX and now I use much Assembler to >work with IBM. It's just the best choice for the best moment. I just finished the initial writing (and ready to go into testing and debugging) of a multitasking program for VM/CMS. It is written in assembler (and will be available when ready). But I challenge anyone to rewrite in C (or any HLL of their choice). I will be writing an interface to use it from C programs, and to a limited extent from Rexx. -- /***************************************************************************\ / Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | Guns don't aim guns at \ \ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks | people; CRIMINALS do!! / \***************************************************************************/
phil@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU (Phil Howard KA9WGN) (04/26/91)
USERECGF@LNCC.BITNET (Eduardo Cavalcanti Gomes Ferreira) writes: >I think you are all missing the point. Neither Assembler is better nor C. >The point is that you use any of them for a particular use. I think C is >a good language and, dispite its 'uglyness', is a wonderful way of accessing >system features from a HLL language. >I used it very much when I worked with UNIX and now I use much Assembler to >work with IBM. It's just the best choice for the best moment. I just finished the initial writing (and ready to go into testing and debugging) of a multitasking program for VM/CMS. It is written in assembler (and will be available when ready). But I challenge anyone to rewrite in C (or any HLL of their choice). I will be writing an interface to use it from C programs, and to a limited extent from Rexx. -- /***************************************************************************\ / Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | Guns don't aim guns at \ \ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks | people; CRIMINALS do!! / \***************************************************************************/
rsd@corvette.utdallas.edu (Shane Davis) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr25.231733.23758@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes: |> USERECGF@LNCC.BITNET (Eduardo Cavalcanti Gomes Ferreira) writes: |> |> >I think you are all missing the point. Neither Assembler is better nor C. |> >The point is that you use any of them for a particular use. I think C is |> >a good language and, dispite its 'uglyness', is a wonderful way of accessing |> >system features from a HLL language. |> >I used it very much when I worked with UNIX and now I use much Assembler to |> >work with IBM. It's just the best choice for the best moment. |> |> I just finished the initial writing (and ready to go into testing and |> debugging) of a multitasking program for VM/CMS. It is written in |> assembler (and will be available when ready). But I challenge anyone |> to rewrite in C (or any HLL of their choice). I will be writing an |> interface to use it from C programs, and to a limited extent from Rexx. |> -- David Lippke has written a multitasker _mostly_ in C. Assembler is used for IUCV support; access to various DIAGs, CMS ECBs, CPU clock primitives; C/370 stack frame control; interrupt handling; and 64-bit arithmetic. The dispatcher and everything else are done in C/370. It also lacks resource management and processes must surrender dispatchability voluntarily. I don't recall why, but he named it "7-Up" (module prefixes are UNC = "the un-cola". --Shane Davis Univ. of Texas at Dallas