Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!nsc!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari,net.micro.cbm,net.lang,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: structured assembler
Message-ID: <463@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-Jan-86 20:34:00 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.463
Posted: Sun Jan 19 20:34:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 08:29:48 EST
References: <350@3comvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 58
Xref: watmath net.micro.atari:2493 net.micro.cbm:1958 net.lang:2058 net.micro.amiga:1652

> This leads me to some questions that I have for all the UNIX gurus out
> there.  Is 'C' really portable, or is UNIX pretty tough to port anyway
> (by pretty tough, I mean a few months' work)?  Are other applications
> written in 'C' really portable?  (I bet most are near impossible to
> port from UNIX to the 8086).

A project I am leading wrote 12000 lines of C in about four months on
a VAX running Berkeley 4.2 UNIX.  Then we tried to port it to the IBM AT
running PC-DOS and Microsoft C V3.0.  Six hours after we started moving
the source over, it ran.  Perfectly.  Is this portable?

> Is it worth it for portability to have
> programs that run at half the speed (or less) than the computer is
> capable of (or will it matter if they make computers go fast enough)?

Ask all those companies that right now are wishing they could move their
8088 assembler language programs over to the Atari.

> Should it matter that a language called Action (similar to BASM) on a
> toy Atari 800 can compile a megabyte of source code (a little overstated)
> in the time any 'C' compiler I have seen can compile "Hello, World"?
> Is portability a reality?  I can port a BASM program from the C64 to
> the C128 to the Atari 800 to the Apple II faster than a 'C' program can
> be ported from Unix to the IBM PC, and we are talking about 20 MILLION
> machines.  Will a 'C' program ever be ported from the Amiga or ST to
> anywhere else (the Amiga OS has maybe 400 functions not supported by
> Unix)?  How many are worth porting the other way?
> 

One of the reasons that the Atari ST uses GEM is because GEM provides
a consistent interface for application programs, and GEM works on the
IBM PC family as well.

> I have not been trying to flame 'C', which is a Ratfor for PDP-11 assembler
> language, so please nobody take this as a personal attack against some
> hallowed institution.  What I have been trying to do is provide some
> food for thought for those of you out there who want to write compilers.
> The world needs more Modula and Pascal and 'C' compilers like we all
> need another hole in the head.  How about using 'C' to bootstrap a
> new language that fits a machine's architecture reasonably.
> 

What we need are 'C' compilers that WORK!  Microsoft V3.0 is real good.
It is the only C compiler for the PC family I have seen that is trustworthy
and useable.  I just wish it was available for the Atari.

> I shudder to think of a highly structured 'C' program spending the
> majority of its time pushing and poping registers, passing arguments,
> and returning a whole byte (or word or more) for a true/false condition.

Sounds like you are objecting to structured design.  Maybe building
video games structured design isn't important because video games, while
complicated, aren't subject to the levels of maintenance and enhancement
that other products are.  (If it doesn't do what you expected when you
move the joystick, you can just define a new "rule" for the game).

> Mike Schwartz @ 3Com Corp.
>