On 5/6/07, W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > That C and not assembler ought to be the target language, no matter > the application. That assembler is deprecated in favour of C. >
and make it harder for the pascal boys? if you hard code the procedure calling convention of c then you just wrote off 95 percent of your customers. c assumes a stack. how do you setup the initial stack? how do you setup the other stacks? another is the memory allocator. you want to hardcode malloc too? or do you hardcode object allocation and garbage collection? im talking from the kernel writer point of view. and im most familiar with the x86. c assumes there is a system already running. and most probably that system is brought up using assembly coded initialization code. the biggest problem with adding high level language support in a processor is that it will more or less be biased to a certain os design. it will not be flexible enough for everybody. how would you feel if it is biased towards unix? fine grained paging, pid tagged user and kernel stacks malloc and free. no garbage collection. can anybody show me how the assembly less systems do it?
> ++L > > If that ever comes to pass, I'm going back to a wire-wrap tool.
no kidding! wire wrap is still a nice technology for protoyping! try developing a 6 layer backplane pcb.
There *can be no* one-size fits-all final answers unless and until all progress is to be called off and stagnation and decline to the death are mandated from on-high.
of course. thats why we have lowest common denominator economics.
Not even for biologicals with billion+ year history. 'adapt or die' may have long cycle, but it is an unforgiving one. Bill
