The C language most definitely *is* a portable assembly language. The original *NIX compilers actually translated the C source code into the native platform assembly language. The compilers allowed inserting "raw" assembly language, so the programmer could use platform-specific coding.
Some of the C compilers today translate the C source code straight into object code, which I despise. If you want to see a manly C compiler, check http://www.dignus.com/ it generates HLASM output and has special "syntactic sugar" for customizing the generated HLASM. It supports 64-bit pointers, access register mode, inserting raw assembly language statements, referencing machine registers in C source code, etc. Even IBM uses Systems/C. IMHO, I think it's far superior to PL/S, PL/X. Jeffrey D. Smith Principal Product Architect Farsight Systems Corporation 700 KEN PRATT BLVD. #204-159 LONGMONT, CO 80501-6452 303-774-9381 direct 303-484-6170 FAX http://www.farsight-systems.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 6:43 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Non-Standard Mainframe Language? > > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/26/2007 > at 11:07 AM, Mohammad Khan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >Well, C on UNIX is really assembler > > No, because it doesn't allow you to generate specific opcodes. Worse, > its preprocessor facility is far more feeble than that of any > assembler that I've used for decades. > > >A similar approach for MVS would have been great in my humble > >opinion > > Google for, e.g., BSL, PL/S, PL/X. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
