Xref: utzoo comp.sys.intel:517 comp.lang.misc:1808
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!steinmetz!ge-dab!ge-rtp!edison!rgc
From: rgc@edison.GE.COM (Rick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: PL/M
Summary: Language of choice???
Keywords: software development
Message-ID: <1627@edison.GE.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 88 15:35:32 GMT
References: <17377@gatech.edu>
Organization: the Mom-and-Pop Light-Bulb Shop
Lines: 33

In article <17377@gatech.edu>, ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
> --
> 
> It is my understanding that PL/M is (or was) the system programming language
> of choice for the iAPX processors.
>
  I thought that Intel pushed this high-level language on the software
  developers...as if there were no other languages available for their
  processors???
 
> Can someone offer critical commentary as to the suitibility of PL/M as
> ssystem programming language over, say, C?
>
  There are no suitable comparisons of PL/M to C...there is no contest
  (in favor of C)...
 
> What makes PL/M uniquely suited to programming the iAPX processors?
>
  Intel did make some optimum hooks and handles in PL/M that were suitable
  towards their processors (ie, a SEG and OFFSET function).  They also
  had 3 levels of code optimization (before anyone else had??) ... 'course
  almost all compilers now offer some types of optimization, don't they :-)

> Thanks...

  Overall, i prefer using C (and some assembly, if necessary)  with 
  the Intel processors...

-- 
Yet another comment from:
------------------------
                                                         Rick Carl
                                                 rgc@edison.GE.COM