🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr25.231733.23758@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>,
phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes:
|> USERECGF@LNCC.BITNET (Eduardo Cavalcanti Gomes Ferreira) writes:
|> 
|> >I think you are all missing the point.  Neither Assembler is better nor C.
|> >The point is that you use any of them for a particular use.  I think C is
|> >a good language and, dispite its 'uglyness', is a wonderful way of
accessing
|> >system features from a HLL language.
|> >I used it very much when I worked with UNIX and now I use much Assembler to
|> >work with IBM.  It's just the best choice for the best moment.
|> 
|> I just finished the initial writing (and ready to go into testing and
|> debugging) of a multitasking program for VM/CMS.  It is written in
|> assembler (and will be available when ready).  But I challenge anyone
|> to rewrite in C (or any HLL of their choice).  I will be writing an
|> interface to use it from C programs, and to a limited extent from Rexx.
|> -- 

David Lippke has written a multitasker _mostly_ in C. Assembler is used for
IUCV support; access to various DIAGs, CMS ECBs, CPU clock primitives; C/370
stack frame control; interrupt handling; and 64-bit arithmetic. The dispatcher
and everything else are done in C/370. It also lacks resource management and
processes must surrender dispatchability voluntarily.

I don't recall why, but he named it "7-Up" (module prefixes are UNC = "the
un-cola".

--Shane Davis
  Univ. of Texas at Dallas