To: IVIE AT cc DOT usu DOT edu, OPENDOS AT delorie DOT com References: <01INZ6DGLWIABG735I AT cc DOT usu DOT edu> Message-Id: Organization: International Brownian Movement From: "-= ArkanoiD =-" Date: Tue, 23 Sep 97 20:37:17 +0300 Subject: Re: ClosedDos??? Lines: 41 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk nuqneH, > Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:29:31 -0600 (MDT) > From: Roger Ivie > Subject: Re: ClosedDos??? > To: OPENDOS AT delorie DOT com [dd] > > VAX programs could be manually optimized: remember that Macro-11 _is_ a > >valid programming language - and it is hard to imagine someone coding big > >projects in Alpha assembler. (back to C vs ASM discussion on this list) > > That would be Macro-32 if it's for the VAX. Ooops,it was a typo.. > It has been some time since I have looked at the code generated for the more > recent device drivers I've been doing in C. The Alpha/VMS guys have done a lot > of work to make C an excellent language to use for writing VMS device drivers. > The only drivers I still do in Macro-32 are ones that either execute on the > VAX, are ported from the VAX (i.e., have executed on the VAX), or deal with > portions of the kernel that are not yet C-friendly (such as the terminal > class/port driver interface). Hmm.. but look at VMS versions: more C - higher hadrware requirements. V4 used 2Mb RAM,V6 uses 16! > C doesn't fit everywhere. I doubt I could find a C compiler which works > well enough write a CP/M-80 BIOS, yet I have no qualms about using C for > embedded 68HC11 code (the 68HC11 is much more C-friendly than the 8080). > Were I writing MS-DOS device drivers, I would certainly look at doing them > in C. I'd better think on low-level language like C-- or PL/M-86 BTW is there such thing as PL/M-386? --- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Must be a visit from the dead.. _| o |_ | | _|| | / _||_| |_ |_ |_ CU in Hell .......... Arkan#iD |_ o _||_| _||_| / _| | o |_||_||_|