Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!vrdxhq!dgis!bms-at!stuart
From: stuart@bms-at.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C vs assembler, or, Here We Go
Message-ID: <385@bms-at.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-May-87 17:59:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: bms-at.385
Posted: Sat May  2 17:59:52 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 3-May-87 08:02:30 EDT
References: <382@bms-at.UUCP> <165600001@uiucdcsb>
Organization: Business Management Systems, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Lines: 17
Summary: Not so easy . . .

In article <165600001@uiucdcsb>, kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes:

> > hrs for 'C'.  The difference is that  our  'C'  library  has  not
> > evolved  to  the  extent  that  the  assembler  library has.  (An

> Sounds as if what you need is a set of interface adapters to make your
> assembler library callable by C programs.  And, speaking from

Ahhh, you miss the point.  The C programs run on (many) different machines
than the assembler code!  Portability was one of the advantages I pointed
out for 'C'.

The assembler code runs on IBM Series/1 minis under EDX only.  Our 'C'
code runs on any Unix box with little effort, and even in EDX with
major library work.
-- 
Stuart D. Gathman	<..!seismo!dgis!bms-at!stuart>