Re: MI as the MI language of the as400.

From: Jon Paris <Jon.Paris@Partner400.com>
> That said - I was party to many _years_ (not hours, not days, not months)
of
> debate on these issue with some of the greatest OS engineers, designers and
> compiler writers it has ever been my privilege to work with.  All of them
> were highly experienced in S/38 and OS/400 architecture.  I find it really
> hard to believe that if it was all as simple as you want to make it sound,
> that nobody thought of it?  Long before ILE itself took shape there was a
> protracted period when everything was done to make C and similar languages
> function efficiently on the box without the need for spending the millions
> of $ that ILE cost.  That effort is one of the reasons why basic program
> calls are much more efficient than they used to be.  I never met anybody
who
> wanted to make it more complex and expensive - but I did work with many who
> tried their damnedest to keep it as simple as possible.
>

The counter to this is that C, C++ and such like languages have very
efficient and yet very simple implementations of other platforms, e.g.
Unix and even the PC. No need for ILE-type complexity here. So what
you are saying is that the AS/400 base architecture is such that only
something with ILE-complexity can cut the mustard?