Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!fortune!dsd!dna
From: dna@dsd.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Intel 8086 Tools
Message-ID: <223@dsd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Dec-83 13:37:16 EST
Article-I.D.: dsd.223
Posted: Wed Dec 21 13:37:16 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Dec-83 10:43:55 EST
Lines: 32


  It is all very well and good for someone to say "Well, we just
love 'C' and you are stupid not to use it for your systems
programs."  It also shows a lack of understanding of PLM-86.
I personally have written several large applications programs
for the 8086 in both PLM-86 and C.  My current work is on an
IBM-PC using AZTEC C.  With the possible exception of the new
CI-C86 (which I have asked to have ordered for evaluation), no
C compiler I know supports the large model of the 8086.  None
generate half as effecient code as PLM-86.  None support interrupt
procedures.  None take full advantages of the system features.
None allow full access to the internal registers.  Perhaps if you
like writing half your application program in assembly language to
get around the limitations of your "higher" level language, then
C is for you.  When I use a higher level language I expect it to
help me, not hinder me.
  Also, consider the software base Intel has invested in PLM-86.
All their current software projects for the 8086/286 are written
in PLM-86 (yes, they have a native mode code generator for the
286).  All their real time operating systems are written in and
support the calling sequence of PLM-86.  Why should they throw all
this away for 'C'?
  Further, consider the following..  One could quite easily write
a set of macro's for a good macro processor to convert 'C' code into
PLM code for a substantial improvement in code effeciency on the
8086, however the reverse is not possible.  Again I ask, why should
they downgrade their systems programming language for the sake of
'standardization.'  If they wanted to do everything the 'standard'
way, would you advise them to use FORTRAN?

 Sorry if I have rocked anyone's boat, but I feel it is important
to look at both sides of the coin.             Mike (WB6KTN)