From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: cym224@gmail.com (Nemo)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:57:33 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] Algol68 vs. C at Bell Labs
In-Reply-To: <2c674075-db86-827b-fd97-30921757e9ae@aueb.gr>
References: <0f57f9d8248db61cba34372814d2f45e.squirrel@webmail.yaccman.com>
 <CAC20D2OT2k6TqvdBiCzM8PoJ6Bs4YZKZ1BPPT_czJT0koGMk_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOkr1zV9_vtMtZ65Cf-+qOAWYdHvpZ+-CXS9zz7Q5UaNDP5wFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEoi9W5RA0Eb90YT5t_23Q8bwj_Hi8pfmzsNpE0ujWLH-GnC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <2c674075-db86-827b-fd97-30921757e9ae@aueb.gr>
Message-ID: <CAJfiPzy+J=AWbhjrdxNBCLg=g0eMbeONwFDUeVTpd8uHjnsPZA@mail.gmail.com>

On 30 June 2016 at 15:21, Diomidis Spinellis <dds at aueb.gr> wrote:
[...]
> Two factors might had made the choice of 8088 a more practical one for IBM.
>
[...]
> In addition, the 8086 architecture was an extension of the 8080 one, which
> made it easier to make the MS-DOS API compatible with the CP/M one, which
> was used by many popular programs.  This would simplify their porting.  (A
> lot of early IBM PC software was written in assembly language.)

I heard that a lot of the BIOS was a simple-minded translation of
corresponding 8080-assembler.  I believe that; if you look at the
horrible assembler, which was actually printed in the IBM Technical
Manual, you could see that most 8086 extensions were not used.

N.