On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:54:49 -0600, Paul Raulerson wrote: >> On Jan 24, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> >> Like many old sayings, it's worth what you paid for it. The z instruction >> set includes operations far more powerful than anything in C, and the lack >> of a Turing complete macro language makes C highly inflexible. >> > >I am not sure that really makes sense. What exactly do you feel is “more >powerful” about the zArch instruction set than “anything” in the C language?
You can't find any of the more than 1100 instructions in the z/Architecture instruction set that are more powerful than any C language constructs? >The C language was actually modeled on the PDP-11 instruction set A very primitive instruction set compared to the current z/Architecture instruction set. >As for Macros, well, C macros are generally much simpler than HLASM, though >with good reason. Yes, it was easier to code. >Most of the functionality embedded in Macros off HLASM is provided by the >standard C libraries. Really? I don't think so. -- Tom Marchant
