CompuServe Messages

OK, peeps, here is the new thread. Larry, what the machine "really" does is interpret 1's and 0's; assembly is just a convenient representation (with substantially more mnemonic value) for humans. I know I'm being "picky", but pholosopy is that way. 'C' and BCPL are other representations of "what is going on". And yes, I do look at the generated code when the going gets sticky, even when it is MY compiler that generated the code (perhaps I should say especially when). I re-iterate, a BIG MISTAKE in AmigaDOS was the attempt to make the Assembler interface easy at all. AmigaDOS' interface should have been described only in some higher-level language (in this I agree with Peter). I differ with Peter in that I don't need (or even want) the external specification of the operating system to neccessarily written in whatever language happens to be used to write the operating system. Peter, Steve: …OS/9… "something slightly normal" "more acceptable" judgment call gentlemen. To whom? I'm not an international expert, but I assure you that they "do t'ings diff'rn't ov'r thar". Jeesh, they don't even all speak English (well American, I don't speak English). Why Tripos, 'cuz they (MetaComCo) had it. why didn't whomever had OS/9 bid on the OS project, or for that matter what is wrong with Hunter & Redy VRTX? Peter "They don't give types of arguments and parameters", unfortunately both BCPL and 'C' are typeless languages, now if they'd been really serious they would have used Pascal, Modula, ADA. or something real like that, but BCPL was invented a long, long, time ago…..in a galaxy far, far, away… My personal preference, which all my "friends" are tired of hearing is Pascal, it's not nearly so Wirthless as most people believe, but ISO standard IS Wirthless for real-time (that's another thread). Peter: array!index definitely takes getting used to, but it is also structure!element -or- element!structure structurepointer!element -or- as above it all depends on the declarations (before you complain LOUDLY there are some interesting theoretical reasons making "structure.element, structurepointer>element, and array[index] all appear the same….its called the universal referent problem….lots of papers published on it). Steve: "One language only"?? Yeah, I wish MetaComCo had released the BCPL compiler for the Amiga (they DID for the ST). We (Metadigm) even offered to finish the job, buy the compiler, something……but they wouldn't twig. Anyway, we had ONE LANGUAGE once (Tower of Babel…or something) God stepped in and look at the mess we've made of it. 'C' on the MAC doesn't "fit" because of some badly mis-informed implementors of languages, and then 'C' doesn't have a standard. I know….they're working on it (make it look more like Pascal every day). JUST FROM ME. I've watched a lot of machines come out (and the OS's with them) over the years. I've never liked ANY OS when I first used it (except for the one I was project manager on). We all react poorly when we have to learn something new "The old way could do 'EVERTHING' God intended us to do". —–Horse Puckey—– There are always different (and better….and worse) ways of doing anything on a computer. Just 'cuz it ain't the way Mom made it doesn't mean it's wrong. Would I have written the OS like AmigaDOS?? NO. Could I do a better job?? I think so. Have I learned anything from the way AmigaDOS is put together?? Absolutely. Was all of it bad?? NO. Could I HAVE written an OS better than AmigaDOS?? At that time, probably not.