[sdiy] uC languages

[Tom May]

"John L Marshall" <john.l.marshall at gte.net> writes:

> Wasn't the PDP-8 the ultimate RISC? Eight instructions? Only one branching
> instruction.
> In the early days, Bad Bill of Redmond, Washington wrote all his
> applications on a PDP-10 (2060).

Paul still does:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=xkleten&hl=en&group=alt.sys.pdp10&rnum=5&selm=34a85fd3.3481181%40nntp.ix.netcom.com

Tom.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Magnus Danielson <cfmd at swipnet.se>
> To: <buchty at cs.tum.edu>
> Cc: <sschneid at bigpond.net.au>; <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl>
> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 7:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [sdiy] uC languages
> 
> 
> > From: Rainer Buchty <buchty at cs.tum.edu>
> > Subject: RE: [sdiy] uC languages
> > Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 03:03:29 +0100 (MET)
> >
> > > > (In fact I love 68K assembly the most)
> > >
> > > 11th commandment:
> > > Thou shalt not use any assembly language besides 6502 and 6809.
> >
> > Not entierly correct. If you are fluent in PDP-11 or VAX-11 that is
> > accepted too. If you usually hack on your private PDP-10 or Cray-1,
> > then you are certainly allowed to deviate!
> >
> > Nobody has volenteered to do an Alpha based thing! I *really* want one
> > ;O)
> >
> > But seriously. People complain about not being able to get C compilers
> > for microprocessors. There is one out there which do have things like
> > ARM, AVR, 68k, 68HC11, S390 support and you can find out more about it
> > here:
> >
> > http://www.fsf.org/software/gcc/gcc.html
> >
> > You can (if you are a bit handy) add more support to it.
> >
> > It does quite alot of various optimization tricks and they keep adding
> > to them. There are allways some commercial compilers that are better
> > on some architecture, but GCC do a hell of a job most of the
> > time. It's not bad. There are still things to improve, but that is
> > especially on modern RISCs.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Magnus