Re: PLM vs. C for 80286/80386

Article View: comp.sys.intel

Article #280

#280

From: Peter da Silva
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1989 12:33

13 lines
1115 bytes

In article <14395@bfmny0.UUCP>, tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>  * PL/M doesn't range check DO CASE for you automatically, it's your
>    responsibility.  This demands programmer responsibility but allows
>    for extra speed in the case where the o/r *truly* "can't happen".

Come one, Tom. You're usually right on, but it's not fair to tout the
PL/M case statement as a benefit over C's switch statement after you've
already admitted that PL/M's case statement is badly flawed.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <4551@ficc.uu.net>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter

References: <598@philtis.UUCP> <126@tridom.uucp> <5711@lynx.UUCP> <14395@bfmny0.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: PLM vs. C for 80286/80386
Keywords: PLM C
Message-ID: <4551@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 14 Jun 89 12:33:23 GMT
References: <598@philtis.UUCP> <126@tridom.uucp> <5711@lynx.UUCP> <14395@bfmny0.UUCP>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 13

Reply to Parent Message