Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC

On 3/11/2025 7:51 PM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 23:58:11 +0000, BGB wrote:
 

On 3/11/2025 5:44 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:39:55 -0700, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>

On 3/11/2025 12:07 PM, moi wrote:

>
No, it is logically a copy.

>
While that is true, I don't think anyone is talking about a "copy" op
code.  :-)  I had thought about mentioning in the software part of the
argument that COBOL actually has a "move" verb to accomplish that, i.e.
"Move A to B." even though you are technically right that it is a copy.

>
There is a language (C++) which has introduced reference operators that
distinguish between “move semantics” versus “copy semantics”.
>
No, I haven’t got my head around it either.

>
I still haven't seen any good reason to move to C++.

 C++ is for those situations where you want to write a small amount of
code and have it compile into a vast string of instructions.
 

Yeah, one can use iostream and have a trivial "hello world" type program have build times and binary size like it was something quite substantial...

C is for those situations where you want to write a small amount of
code and have it compile into a small string of instructions.

Yeah.
With C, I can have my own compiler, and I can write my Boot ROM program in mostly plain C.
Not that many other languages can manage this sort of thing...
Granted, there are practical limits, like my compiler has some features that can't be used in something like the Boot ROM. This isn't a huge loss.