newbie building a scratch-built computer

[Chuck Guzis]

On 1 Aug 2007 at 20:56, dwight elvey wrote:

> I'm not sure why you'd say that. It is a simple programming language
> but is quite remote from most any assembly language I've worked
> with. The only higher level languages that I've worked with that
> I could say were close to assembly were Forth and LISP. That is
> only because there were machines made that were dedicated to
> that particular lanuage.
> C doesn't fit well onto any of the processors that I've seen lately.
> It is always sub-optimal.

I code a lot of C, mostly for portability between systems.  I don't 
like a lot of aspects, but it's "good enough" for most things--and 
there is the facility for coding inline assembly in many compilers.

What's been depressing through the entire period of microcomputers is 
the lack of a really good assembler.   Very many lack a literal 
constant facility, e.g.  LEA	EDX,="This is a string literal".  Few 
assemblers implement data types in their macro language;; in 
particular, arrays of objects usually have to be synthesized 
lexically; there is usually no facility for remote assembly 
(specifying code to be stored and assembled in another location; very 
handy with macros).  The list goes on.  The odd thing is that most of 
these facilities were present in 60's era mainframe assemblers, where 
those facilities really did make things easier.

I recall doing a command processor for an operator's console that 
featured auto command completion.  A good assembler allowed me to 
specify the text value and format of each command and a good macro 
language compiled the list into a tree structure.

C's preprocessor is very anemic.  An example of a good preprocessor 
is that of PL/I, which almost duplicates most of the imperatives in 
the language for use at preprocessor time.  In C++, some individuals 
take a perverse delight in showing that all manner of computation can 
be done using the template facility, but the same computations using 
the PL/I preprocessor would have been simple.

Enough ranting.  You work with what you have.

Cheers,
Chuck