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