To:	mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Cc:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970921140457 DOT 11830C-100000 AT capslock DOT com>
Message-Id:	<AAc_N9qiV7@mpak.convey.ru>
Organization:	International Brownian Movement
From:	"-= ArkanoiD =-" <ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru>
Date:	Sun, 21 Sep 97 23:13:26 +0300
Subject:	Re: source code
Lines:	36
MIME-Version:	1.0

nuqneH,

> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:12:15 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
> X-Sender: mharris AT capslock DOT com
> Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
> To: ark AT mos DOT ru
> cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject: Re: source code

[dd]

> >  > > In what language is the source code?
> >  > C and ASM.  Borland C, MS C, Watcom, TurboC, and about 50
> >  > assemblers.  Oh, and a partridge in a pear tree...
> >  > (roughly taken from the FAQ.)  IMHO there is TOO MUCH ASM in the
> >  > tree.
> >
> >      Kernel must be total in the ASM, or you lost efficiency. B-|
>
> Hahaha! Good one!!  ROTFLMAO!  Linux is 99% plain C code and is a
> heck of a lot more efficient and powerful than ANY DOS!  HAHHAHA.

IMHO you are missing the point completely: Unixlike OSes and
highly machine-dependant systems are two different things: what is required
for the first case could be inacceptable for second.. Linux is great,but
you will never see linux with non-overlay kernel that takes ~40Kb RAM.
Using "99% plain C" will cause memory and performance overheads so big that..
it would be better to use Unix and not to re-invent it.

More ASM - better performance. Have you seen Linewars II game?

--- 
                                       _     _  _  _  _      _  _
   Must be a visit from the dead..     _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
   CU in Hell ..........  Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|

- Raw text -