From: muta...@gmail.com   
      
   On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 10:27:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Monk wrote:   
      
   > > If you wish to state that the very first mainframe C compiler,   
   > > probably by Ritchie, was the only unique C compiler...   
   >   
   > Ritchie didnt write C on a mainframe. He wrote C on a PDP-7 machine.   
   > It is called C because it is a follow on of B, which was also developed   
   > on a PDP-7, both of which were running Unix.   
      
   Yes, and then he ported it to the mainframe I believe.   
   I think his port has been lost though.   
      
   My understanding, and point is that it took IBM a long   
   time to take any interest in C.   
      
   > The (much) better systems language for the mainframe is assembler.   
      
   If you're talking about executing MVS system services, at   
   least traditionally, there is no debate about that. The OS   
   interface itself is given in assembler terms only.   
      
   If that's what this debate is about, then we are in agreement.   
   It's not that C is a poor match, it's that it doesn't work at all.   
   No language does except assembler.   
      
   But in some other mainframe OS, like Linux, where the OS   
   interface is given in C terms, there is no advantage of   
   assembler or any other language over C, as far as I am   
   aware.   
      
   Whoever is complaining needs to specify what they are   
   talking about.   
      
   BFN. Paul   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)