Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: 80286 microprocessor problems
Message-ID: <276@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 19:46:13 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.276
Posted: Mon Dec  3 19:46:13 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 05:38:20 EST
References: <457@intelca.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 29

> 	Here we go again with more astounding ignorance.
> I suggest that you reread the 80286 programmers reference manual
> The 80286 was not intended as a processor for simple minds, such
> as some other so called 32 bit architectures.

OK, does that mean you can do a compiler that can generate large-model
code that runs as efficiently or more efficiently on the '286 than on
machines with 32-bit registers?  If not, why should developers waste their
time programming around a machine which isn't 100% at home with large
address spaces?  If so, where is this compiler, and why are several
presumably-knowledgable compiler writers quoted as saying that writing
a compiler to generate good large-model code for the 8086 family is a
bitch?

> Conclusion: I think that most software writers should get a better
> grip on the 80286 architecture and I myself at first thought it to be
> too complex.

Why should software writers have to get a better grip on a particular
chip's architecture?  Why should chip makers pump out chips that require
people other than the OS and compiler developers to deal with the gory
details?  People developing a program whose purpose isn't dealing with
the hardware should be free to spend their time making the program serve
its purpose better, not making it deal more efficiently with the problems
the chip provides.  That's why applications are written in high-level
languages.

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy