Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!helios.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.utah.edu!rcapener
From: RCAPENER@cc.utah.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re: TopSpeed Modula-2 V2.00 not quite that bad?
Message-ID: <75055@cc.utah.edu>
Date: 3 Jul 90 07:43:02 GMT
References: <7734@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Lines: 20
X-Local-Date: 3 Jul 90 00:43:02 PDT

In article <7734@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM
(Tom Almy) writes:
> I bought the upgrade, and then read this group. While I'm not happy with
> the C orientation of V2.00 (mainly because the 8086 is a lousy machine for
> a C implementation, and much better for Modula-2 or Pascal which can
> effectively handle segments) the complaint about missing "C language sources"
> is blatently false.
>

Jimminy Crickets!  Is that why they use C to write almost all of the
software for IBM RS/6000, the Motorola 88000 based machines (DG Aviion
and Tektronix WS)?  Hmm, I wonder why C works so well on those machines
that have segmented architectures.  Perhaps it could be that they are
workstations while the lowly 8086 is only used in a PC 8^)?

Or maybe the fact that the majority of the compilers out there are
written in C (ok, so some of them are still written in Assembler)
means that they are also using the wrong language 8-)).

I delight in pulling the tiger's tail 8^))).