Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!umriscc!umree!rajuk
From: rajuk@umree.isc.umr.edu (Raju Khubchandani)
Newsgroups: comp.realtime
Subject: Re: Software primitives for real-time programming languages
Keywords: Languages
Message-ID: <1424@umriscc.isc.umr.edu>
Date: 21 Sep 90 15:10:32 GMT
References: <12682@cs.utexas.edu> <1844@tuvie> <12712@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: news@umriscc.isc.umr.edu
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
Lines: 20

In article <12712@cs.utexas.edu> rhwang@cs.utexas.edu (Rwo-Hsi Wang) writes:
>>I strongly believe that for hard real-time systems an integrated
>>approach encompassing:
>>	1.  Architecture
>>	2.  Operating system
>>	3.  Scheduling strategy 
>>	4.  Programming language 
>While it will be interesting to see discussions on all of the above topics,
                                                                     I'd like
>to suggest that we first focus on the programming language issue.

I have read more than I have hands-on experience with programming languages,
but would anybody disagree that the fastest way to execute is using the assembly
level language of any processor? In other words, what I am saying is that for a
given processor and clock/bus speed the fastest way to execute is to do assembly
level programming. I know this is a lot of programming effort compared to using
a high level language, but the objective is to extract maximum juice from your
hardware.

Raju