[comp.lang.asm370] why code in c or assembler?

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