Re: A snapshot of the LuxAsm developments

From: T.M. Sommers (tms_at_nj.net)
Date: 12/23/04

  • Next message: Betov: "Re: Merry Christmas and an Happy new year" 
    Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:57:32 GMT

    Beth wrote:
    > UNIX
    > was originally an OS for _mainframes_

    The PDP-7 and PDP-11 were hardly mainframes.

    > To be honest, looking at Linux, the system itself is reasonably good...the
    > problems it has are more to do with the programmers it attracts...like, for
    > instance, I asked on a Linux newsgroup about the "int 80h" interface (just
    > in case someone has already made some kind of "table" or something with the
    > latest, full information about it...because if they have, that saves us a
    > lot of effort making one of our own for LuxAsm :)...and, yeah, a C / C++
    > coder appears and says "NEVER use the syscalls directly...always use
    > libc!"...I'm surprised I also wasn't told off for using assembly language
    > too ("ALWAYS use C!!" ;)...
    >
    > No, it wasn't that bad, really...like I say, not criticised for using
    > assembly language so better than the "usual" responses...but you know the
    > deal: They use C, they use "libraries", they consider ASM, direct access
    > and other things "verboten!" in all circumstances...they don't care for
    > "bloat" or "bad performance" because they believe "buy more RAM!"...and so
    > on and so forth...such coders can screw up _any_ system, really...

    We have had that discussion on this group before. Unix is
    defined in terms of its C interface, not its assembler interface.
      The C interface *is* the Unix interface. The assember
    interface is undocumented, unsupported, and subject to change at
    any time. The very question you asked in

    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.development.apps/browse_frm/thread/8f46ef08d43224df/7dd34fcb2d5aecaa?tvc=1&q=syscalls+group:comp.os.linux.*+author:beth&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fas_q%3Dsyscalls%26num%3D10%26scoring%3Dr%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_epq%3D%26as_oq%3D%26as_eq%3D%26as_ugroup%3Dcomp.os.linux.*%26as_usubject%3D%26as_uauthors%3Dbeth%26lr%3D%26as_drrb%3Dq%26as_qdr%3D%26as_mind%3D1%26as_minm%3D1%26as_miny%3D1981%26as_maxd%3D20%26as_maxm%3D12%26as_maxy%3D2004%26safe%3Doff%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&scrollSave=&&d#7dd34fcb2d5aecaa

    is an example of why you should not use the assember interface.

    But I suppose I am talking to a brick wall. 

    -- 
Thomas M. Sommers -- tms@nj.net -- AB2SB
  • Next message: Betov: "Re: Merry Christmas and an Happy new year"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Sarahs very sad...
      ... There is a core of a Unix OS in the foundations, ... It is a considerable wrench going from a GUI to a program whose interface ... Linux or Unix system without ever seeing a command line or a config file ...
      (uk.people.support.depression)
    • Re: Computer
      ... All the Unix commands are there. ... I don't care about the base operating system. ... I like the Mac interface better than the Windows interface. ... I rather suspect that some would still be using the old DOS and command lines, ...
      (rec.photo.digital)
    • Re: Computer
      ... All the Unix commands are there. ... I don't care about the base operating system. ... I like the Mac interface better than the Windows ... businesses using old DOS programs in a DOS box, ...
      (rec.photo.digital)
    • Re: Computer
      ... All the Unix commands are there. ... I like the Mac interface better than the Windows ... I find businesses using old DOS ...
      (rec.photo.digital)
    • Re: A snapshot of the LuxAsm developments
      ... > defined in terms of its C interface, not its assembler interface. ... What you say about UNIX is certainly true. ... That's why calls don't change semantics in Linux, ...
      (alt.lang.asm)