In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/27/2007
at 11:47 AM, Mohammad Khan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The point is that specific opcodes do not matter for generic
>operations
only if you carefully rig the definition of generic to exclude things
in the instruction repertoire that are missing from the language.
>and the reduced tedium
What reduced tedium? In some cases I can write code in assembler that
is easier to write and easier to read than a C equivalent.
>In fact its use by IBM validates my point about "a high level
>assembly" language closely tied to the OS being generally better
>than assembly language tied to the CPU in addition to the OS.
How is PL/S tied to the OS?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
