Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!joel
From: joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Intel 80*86 vs IBM 370
Message-ID: <898@peora.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 12:58:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: peora.898
Posted: Wed May  8 12:58:50 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 00:57:37 EDT
References: <10441@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl.
Lines: 22

I have never written assembly language code for any Intel micro-
processor, so I was wondering if anyone had an opinion about writing
code for the 80*86 versus the IBM 370 architecture.

When I used to do systems programming under MVS the base displacement
addressing scheme that IBM uses became tiresome very quickly for large
programs. Is this better or worse than the problems with segmentation
on the 80*86? I thing I can say about IBM's approach it sure encourages
modular programming 8-).

I'm not talking about the complexities of the operating system, since
when it comes to complexity it's hard to beat MVS.

If you really want to cure dissatisfaction with 80*86, just try doing
some assembler code on the APPLE II sometime. I've come to the con-
clusion that the 6502 was invented to punish programmers for sins in
a previous incarnation.

						Joel Upchurch

************ Insert usual disclaimers here *******************
**** IBM, Intel, MVS, and Apple II are probably all trademarks ***