Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dataio.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!bright
From: bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: More fuel for the anti-Intel flames
Message-ID: <656@dataio.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 16:02:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: dataio.656
Posted: Wed May  8 16:02:23 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 03:18:42 EDT
References: <10441@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Data I/O Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 19

In article <10441@brl-tgr.ARPA> jpm@BNL44.ARPA (John McNamee) writes:
>Has anybody else noticed that only persons with vested interests (such as
>people from Intel, AMD, and vendors of 80*86 systems) have said anything
>good about the 80*86? On the other hand, people have come out in support of
>the 68000 and 32000 just because they like the chips, not because they have
>a financial stake in them. Another thing I noticed is that there are a lot
>of people in positions similar to mine: I hate the 80*86, but I still use
>it (I even have a 186 based system of my own at home).

I disagree on one major point. The 8086 is a great machine to write
compilers for, as its complexity and non-orthogonality make it a lot
of fun to try and generate good code for. It's easy (and boring) to
write code generators for machines like the 32032. The 32032 will almost
run your compiler's intermediate code.
By the way, for all you 68000 fans, the 68000 is not very orthogonal
either, ask someone who's tried to write a code generator for it. The
32032 comes a lot closer.
I speak from experience, I have written a C compiler for the 8086 and
worked on one for the 68000.