[Info-vax] BASIC and AST routines

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <619d35db$0$706$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
>On 11/23/2021 1:37 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-11-22, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG <VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote:
>>> In article <sngp1p$aud$2 at dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>>> On 2021-11-19, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to confess to curiosity.  Why are R0, R1, SP, and PC passed to an AST
>>>>> routine?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because it's another example of VMS functionality being implemented
>>>> at way too low an abstraction level because of the need to support
>>>> Macro-32 as an application programming language.
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT!  If you believe that's true, please provide an illustrating example.
>>> I'll be waiting...
>> 
>> That VMS API passes in a stack pointer, a PC and what were originally
>> two architecture-specific registers.
>> 
>> That kind of information simply would not be exposed at application
>> code level in a modern version of that API as it would (rightly) be
>> treated as an implementation specific detail that would be handled
>> by the compiler.
>> 
>> That information is only needed because the lowest supported application
>> language on VMS is Macro-32 and not C (or another comparable low-level
>> language).
>
>What does the Macro-32 application developers need those
>arguments for that the C application developers does not need
>them for?

Manure slinging, of course.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.