Xref: utzoo comp.sys.intel:512 comp.lang.misc:1796 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!ames!amdahl!pyramid!pyrnj!dasys1!tneff From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: PL/M Summary: good sysprog lang Keywords: software development Message-ID: <6151@dasys1.UUCP> Date: 30 Aug 88 15:20:45 GMT References: <17377@gatech.edu> Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Organization: Independent Users Guild Lines: 34 Intel's PL/M-86 (-286, etc) is a very good, meat and potatoes language for "pure" systems programming on iAPX class processors. I have used it extensively in dedicated target systems for six or seven years. What it lets you do is program right down to the iron (including interrupt handlers and time critical OS components) in a high level, procedural language, instead of having to do the "gut work" in assembler. As other posters have pointed out, it has no runtime library at all. This is entirely intentional, and often essential when you are doing my type of application. In terms of the power of the language, I could theoretically use C for most of what I do, but three factors have militated against it: (a) C doesn't normally give you the kinds of 86 hardware primitives (inline) you need to get time critical stuff done; (b) almost every implementation saddles you with a runtime library which you may or may not be able to ROM and run reentrant; and (c) Intel's own pathetic excuse for a C compiler -- adapted from an early version of Mark Williams C -- is a total abortion nobody could use for real work. (Nowadays Microsoft C does a good code generation job, but it doesn't write vanilla OMF object records I can link into my system. Intel is planning to ditch MWC completely and replace it with their own C compiler built around the excellent PL/M code generator, but that will Take a While.) Now, if the way you plan to use "iAPX processors" is to sit and write little programs on an IBM PC, I wouldn't recommend bothering with any of the Intel language products, including PLMx86. Instead you need Turbo C, Prolog etc. But in the event that your department wants to do A/D sampling or other such realtime work using Intel processors, I suspect PL/M would be a good, maintainable choice for the project. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)