Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!shelby!csli!knight
From: knight@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bob Knight)
Newsgroups: comp.realtime
Subject: Re: Searching for realtime languages
Message-ID: <9142@csli.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 27 May 89 22:47:30 GMT
References: <699@tuvie> <2100@internal.Apple.COM> <14355@bfmny0.UUCP>
Sender: knight@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bob Knight)
Reply-To: knight@csli.stanford.edu (Bob Knight)
Distribution: all
Organization: Knight and Associates, Santa Fe, NM
Lines: 16

In article <14355@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>I am posting this via Followup rather than mail because it's time
>PL/M raised its head in comp.realtime.  I recommend PL/M as a realtime
>language of choice in all Intel CPU environments from 8051 to 80486.

I would agree, having written loads of PL/M code for 808x platforms, with
one caveat --- if you want/need complex data structures, PL/M is not a good
choice:  creating an analogue to typedef is painful, one may not nest
structures, and structures themselves are (grossly, in my opinion) limited
as to the number of elements they may have.  

It's good to hear that Intel may have their C act together.  Versions 3 and
4 of the compiler, from the brief look I took at them, were horrible losers.
Now, if they could get a bit less pricey...

Bob