10 ms·

CP/M was far more simpler.

• pjmlp 1y ago
  OP didn't mentioned complexity, nor any kind of comparison.
  • anthk 1y ago
    Nice then. OTOH, CP/M 2.2 has been open sourced, but I think there are no libre assemblers for it. Cross-assemblers, there's one: http://john.ccac.rwth-aachen.de:8000/as/ http://john.ccac.rwth-aachen.de:8000/as/ but it's tedious to build under OpenBSD. As for software, the ZMachine and V3 games don't count as 'libre examples'.
    • pjmlp 1y ago
      Libre was also not part of the comment I replied to.
• II2II 1y ago
  In all probability, yes. I'm not sure how much easier it would be to develop though. Back then, most (if not all) of the operating system was developed in assembly language while there was far more to consider when it came down to performance and memory usage (which is often in conflict with each other). CP/M was also notorious for running on hardware that was incompatible with each other, relying upon the BIOS to smooth out those irregularities. While that may simplify the development in some respects, such as the hardware vendor developing hardware drivers, it complicates development in other respects, since CP/M development could not make assumptions about the underlying hardware.
  • nineteen999 1y ago
    There's some really great documentation out there on CP/M, Kildall struggled initially with the hard disks. While large parts of CP/M were written in assembly, parts were written in PL/M as well.