🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <199@dg.dg.com> uunet!dg!rec (Robert Cousins) writes:
:In article <13976@lanl.gov: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
::Every once in a while, someone in this newsgroup makes the claim
::that RISC trades off hardware complexity for compiler complexity.
::This is simply _NOT_ true.  It is always _easier_ to write a compiler
::for a RISC machine than for a CISC machine.
:
:I must agree.  Our experience on the 88K with a number of pieces 
:of software from gcc to an internally developed FORTH interpreter 
:has shown that RISCs are easier to generate code for.  I would 
:carry this a step further.  While the assembly language development 
:effort is minimal, we have had little difficulty with assembly 
:language to the point where I wonder if RISCs might not be easier 
:to program at that level, also.  If a programmer can do it easily . . . .

Uh, yes and no. Compilers for _some_ languages may be easier to
write for RISC but having recently been working on a COBOL compiler
for the 88K I can tell you that a _huge_ amount of work is involved
in handling commercial data types (decimal and variations of decimal).

I will agree that contrary to popular belief writing assembly language
code for the 88k is a piece of cake.