I’m not sure I buy his arguments. First off, he argues that a true low level language
requires knowledge of the “irrelevant” and then he goes and argues that with C you need
such knowledge on other than a PDP-11.
His arguemnt that whowever he surveyed is ignorant of how C handles padding is equally
pointless. Further, his architecture world seems to be roughly limited to PDP-11’s and
Intel x86 chips.
I’ve ported UNIX to a number of machines from the Denelcor HEP MIMD supercomputer to
various micros from x86 to i860 etc… In addition, I’ve ported high performance computer
graphics applications to just about every UNIX platform aailable (my app is pretty much an
OS into itself) including the x86 of various flavors, MIPS, 68000, Sparc, Stellar, Ardent,
Apollo DN1000, HP9000, iTanium, Alpha, PA RISC, i860 (of various configurations), etc…
All done in C. All done with exacting detail. Yes, you do have to understand the
underlying code being generated, and such is not as bad as he thinks. In fact, all his
arguments argue that C does fit his definition of the low level language.