Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To: Rafa Gawenda <rgawenda AT pobox DOT com>
cc: "Arkady V.Belousov" <ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su>,
        "opendos AT delorie DOT com" <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: source code
In-Reply-To: <199709221143.KAA29011@lince.las.es>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970923090454.10762Y-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Capslock Computer Consulting
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Rafa Gawenda wrote:

> > > > 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-|
> 
> Perhaps someone could read in your words either that Linux isn't efficient (do you know some kernel better than that one) or even worse, that Linus should rewrite it in ASM (-:

Well the fact that Linux is about 99% C, and DOS is 99% ASM, and
that linux is about 100000 times as efficient and powerful in all
areas than DOS should be an educative experience in optimization
and operating system structure.  DOS is slow because it is not
very well thought out.  It *could* be recoded more efficiently,
but it isn't.  Why?  Because who the hell wants to recode stuff
in 100% ASM?  Not me!

MicroC is an efficient compiler that generates exceptionally
small executables.  DOS should be recoded with it - or why
bother...  just visit FreeDOS homepage.

Mike A. Harris        |  Homepage:  http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |  Am I online? -  finger or ping capslock.dyn.ml.org
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell: The #1 Late Night talk radio program.