From: EmailNullFile@nospicedham.voenflacbe.cpm   
      
   On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 12:00:33 -0800 (PST)   
   "Rick C. Hodgin"  wrote:   
      
   > My question is:  Don't you think things like this are far better   
   > handled in a higher level language like C, and that assembly should   
   > be used for only those things where it really matters?   
      
   So, you've made everyone mad on a.o.d. and elsewhere, and are now   
   posting OS development question here (snipped) in reply to a post by   
   someone else?  Or, do you intend to claim this is another spoofed   
   message? ...   
      
   In the past, in reply to many other people, I've answered this question   
   in depth, well, explained it actually, numerous times in   
   alt.os.development.  In fact, it almost seems that the question is   
   directed at me, as very few here are both on clax and aod, and those   
   which are, have coded their OSes in assembly (AFAIK).  If you'd like   
   links my posts, you can ask on a.o.d. or search Google Groups.  Of   
   course, you recently *PLONK*-ed me on a.o.d. in reply to one of your   
   religious rants.  So, there is a slim chance that you might not see   
   this reply ...   
      
   Yes, I think C handles 90% of what is needed for an OS development.   
   The C language captures the essence of the microprocessor from 1970s   
   through the 1980s.  That is all that is required for coding an OS.  Of   
   course, for the x86 architecture, that captured essence is permanent, as   
   the architecture is long-lasting.   
      
   Yes, I think that assembly can, only be used where C is lacking, not   
   necessarily should be though.  Everything can be done in C without   
   assembly, but with more work.   
      
   I believe that developing my OS using C dramatically reduced my   
   development time.  This was on an OS that had few to no hardware   
   restrictions where I could program the hardware directly, i.e.,   
   MS-DOS.  No modern OS will allow you to do this.  There are some   
   limitations with C though that can't be easily overcome with   
   assembly.  E.g., if you want 64-bit code, you need a 64-bit C   
   compiler.  C is not truly portable, only 30% is, but it is more   
   portable than assembly.  Only C and Forth are ubiquitous.  So, your   
   choices of other languages is limited.  Different C compilers compile   
   code differently, use different syntax, have different implementations,   
   or different host dependencies, which complicates matters.  Etc. YMMV.   
      
      
   Rod Pemberton   
   --   
   People who predict things have a tendency to be wrong, but that's just   
   another prediction.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)