From kragen@dnaco.net Tue Aug 4 12:42:33 1998 Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:42:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Kragen To: systalk@ml.org Subject: Re: [ST] Joshua starts a flame war! In-Reply-To: <35C4DC3F.2CD8@ml.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Keywords: X-UID: 1021 Status: O X-Status: On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, A Secret Agent of the Cabal wrote: > An abused prisoner wrote: > > Maybe there is a different view to it, than that. By making a > > low end platform, it invites PC users to be able to user their > > PC's and integrate their use with larger platforms. This will make > > it easier for companies, who have been stuck with old investments, > > to get a bigger system and have it completely workable in their > > office environment. > > I guess so. But PCs aren't reliable enough to replace any of the > aforementioned machines. And the operating system's resource > requirements prevent any scalability like you find on such superior > machines. Well, the majority of downtime and data loss on PCs still come from software problems, not hardware problems. The immediate need is to use better software, not better hardware. A cluster of three PCs with a decent OS and decent hardware in different physical locations with good failover software (which doesn't exist yet, unfortunately) would be very reliable. Barring concurrent software failures or mismanagement (e.g., no spare parts available), downtime would be almost unheard of. > However, I do have a real complaint aganst the gcc folks. > Just what kind of assembly language to they call that .s stuff? > It's not assembly, it looks like some weird untyped language for > same pre-Cambrian Motorola processor. It's supposed to be consistent in syntax across different ports of gas, not consistent in syntax with MASM. What would you expect assembly to look like, other than a weird untyped language? :) > I just can't stand having > to *ever* use different opcodes for a MOV -- i.e. on Intel I say: > > MOV EAX,some_four_byte_number > > while with his mad@$$ GNU assembly (AT&T I think) it looks like > this: > > MOVL %EAX,some_four_byte_number Actually, you have the syntax backwards. gas always has source first, destination second. > Much too verbose (and what *are* all those percent signs about)? Actually, it sounds like MASM is more verbose from your examples. If you want a non-verbose language, why are you programming in assembler? Program in C. Kragen