Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!botter!star.cs.vu.nl!ast
From: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Compress (really "Large Model" compilers)
Message-ID: <2928@ast.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 22 Jul 89 17:53:26 GMT
References: <4671@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 25

In article <4671@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes:
>What can you do with the current Minix C compiler besides recompile
>the kernel?  Nothing really, 

At least count there were about 150 "standard" MINIX programs you could compile.

>I want a REAL C compiler for it that will fully utilize the idiosyncrasies
>of the 80286 architecture 
I, for one, am absolutely, irrevocably, unequivocably, and adamantly
opposed to that mentality, except for people over 65, who grew up with
the ENIAC and MARK I generation.  If there is anything we have learned about
computer science in the past 20 years, it is that programs should be
portable.  A program written in a high-level language, be it C, Pascal, Ada,
or even FORTRAN, should not be tailored to one specific architecture,
and certainly not one on the way out.

I am familiar with too many examples of people who program in their
manufacturer's extended FORTRAN and find it strange when some years later
they have to move to a new machine and nothing works.  If you want to tie
your code to the 80286 architecture, in 5 years when you have a SPARC
or a MIPS or an 88000 of something like that in your low-end PC, you're
gonna be sorry, and you'll get no sympathy from anyone who has any
concept of proper programming practice.

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)