Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site birtch.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!felix!birtch!oleg
From: oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Re: 386 Family Products (8086 sucks
Message-ID: <194@birtch.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 18:01:00 EST
Article-I.D.: birtch.194
Posted: Thu Dec 19 18:01:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 05:15:44 EST
References: <133@daisy.UUCP> <97800013@ima.UUCP> <464@looking.UUCP> <735@stc-b.stc.UUCP>
Reply-To: oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev)
Organization: The Real Estate Conspiracy
Lines: 24

In article <735@stc-b.stc.UUCP> tom@stc.UUCP (Tom Sanders) writes:
>Pascal 86 version 3.1 handles more then 64k data invisibly.

"Invisibly" for who? Programmer? Or the user? 
If your program is busy all the time trying to figure out which segment its next
memory access is in and keeps setting segments on every memory read/write, it's
hardly "invisible"! Then it's not THAT transparent when you look at the time 
factor,eh?

It has been said that large model programs run as slowly on PC/AT as on PC/XT. 
Small models run a lot faster on the AT. So, what kind of invisibility is that?

Besides, I have seen all too many C compilers that screw up the structure 
addressing and pointer referencing in large model programs. What assurance do
you have that your Pascal compiler will not do ugly things when you start using
dynamic structures?

-- 
Disclamer: My employers go to church every Sunday, listen to Country music,
and donate money to GOP. I am just a deviant.
+-------------------------------+ Don't bother, I'll find the door!
| "VIOLATORS WILL BE TOAD!"	|                       Oleg Kiselev. 
|		Dungeon Police	|...!{trwrb|scgvaxd}!felix!birtch!oleg
--------------------------------+...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg