Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC

Scott Lurndal wrote:

BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:

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...

 You don't have to use iostream.  vsnprintf/snprintf/printf all work
fine in C++ code and are far more efficient (and far less verbose).
 Use a subset of C++ (C with classes) and the resulting code is
quite compact, but you still get data encapsulation and
inheritance (with a minor perf hit for virtual functions).

This the "C+" language that I started to use several decades ago! Just getting access to local declarations and inline comments was sufficient back then. Now regular C has of course mostly caught up here, but it doesn't matter since I'm using Rust for anything time-critical.
Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"