dna@dsd.UUCP (12/21/83)
It is all very well and good for someone to say "Well, we just love 'C' and you are stupid not to use it for your systems programs." It also shows a lack of understanding of PLM-86. I personally have written several large applications programs for the 8086 in both PLM-86 and C. My current work is on an IBM-PC using AZTEC C. With the possible exception of the new CI-C86 (which I have asked to have ordered for evaluation), no C compiler I know supports the large model of the 8086. None generate half as effecient code as PLM-86. None support interrupt procedures. None take full advantages of the system features. None allow full access to the internal registers. Perhaps if you like writing half your application program in assembly language to get around the limitations of your "higher" level language, then C is for you. When I use a higher level language I expect it to help me, not hinder me. Also, consider the software base Intel has invested in PLM-86. All their current software projects for the 8086/286 are written in PLM-86 (yes, they have a native mode code generator for the 286). All their real time operating systems are written in and support the calling sequence of PLM-86. Why should they throw all this away for 'C'? Further, consider the following.. One could quite easily write a set of macro's for a good macro processor to convert 'C' code into PLM code for a substantial improvement in code effeciency on the 8086, however the reverse is not possible. Again I ask, why should they downgrade their systems programming language for the sake of 'standardization.' If they wanted to do everything the 'standard' way, would you advise them to use FORTRAN? Sorry if I have rocked anyone's boat, but I feel it is important to look at both sides of the coin. Mike (WB6KTN)
david@intelca.UUCP (David DiGiacomo) (01/06/84)
Intel C-86 (actually Mark Williams C) supports 8086 large model. You can run it (or PLM-86) on the IBM PC using one of several "UDI" packages. I use both languages and I can't see why anyone would use PLM-86 if he/she had an alternative (even FORTRAN).
phil@amd70.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (01/07/84)
> From intelca!david Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 > From: david@intelca.UUCP (David DiGiacomo) > Subject: Re: Intel 8086 Tools > Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. > Intel C-86 (actually Mark Williams C) supports 8086 large model. You > can run it (or PLM-86) on the IBM PC using one of several "UDI" packages. I can't believe my ears. The folks in DSHO implied I'd burn in hell or at least go to jail if I ran Intel software on the IBM PC instead of the blue box it was licensed for. > I use both languages and I can't see why anyone would use PLM-86 if > he/she had an alternative (even FORTRAN). Again, I can't believe my ears. I thought all Intel employees loved PL/M. Dave, how official are your views? Dare I hope that Intel is coming to their senses? -- Phil Ngai (408) 988-7777 {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd70!phil
david@intelca.UUCP (David DiGiacomo) (01/09/84)
My views are totally unofficial. In particular, I have no affiliation with DSO. I fear there is little chance of that part of Intel ever coming to its senses.