Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!usc!venera.isi.edu!raveling
From: raveling@venera.isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: comp.realtime
Subject: Re: Searching for realtime languages
Message-ID: <8524@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 30 May 89 17:45:10 GMT
References: <699@tuvie> <2100@internal.Apple.COM> <14355@bfmny0.UUCP>
Reply-To: raveling@venera.isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Distribution: all
Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California
Lines: 24


	I'll semi-second nomination of PL/M as a good real time language
	for 8x86 family processors.  This is based on some avionics
	software that I worked on that had critical real time requirements.
	Each of several air data computers used a mix of PL/M-86 and 8086
	assembly language, mixed in proportions of about 70/30 to 50/50.

	These applications needed speed and didn't need more than
	basic language features.  Typical PL/M-86 logic was around
	a factor of 2 slower than typical hand-coded assembly language,
	which is pretty decent on Intel's PISC (Perverse Instruction Set
	Computer) architecture.

	Another might-have-been would be a variant of BLISS.  The
	BLISS-11 compiler was the best I've seen so far at efficient
	code generation, and the language was almost the right blend
	of simplicity and capability.  Some details of syntax were
	it's main problem -- probably the dilemma of "how many dots"
	was the biggest.


----------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@isi.edu