rap@peck.ardent.com (Rob Peck) (06/30/89)
In article <287@tardis.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes: >In article <19917@cup.portal.com> stephan@cup.portal.com (Stephen Derek Schaem) writes: >In reference to an IFF library written in C: >> C? why not ASM?.... > [ opinions about large projects and the advantages of high level languages and the disadvantages of using pure assembler languages omitted ] I, for one, am NOT about to discourage ANYONE who decides to work purely in assembler and who, as well, is willing to make his work available to the community at large. After all, if there is an occasion for a mix of C or some other high level language, requiring downcoding of time critical routines, where do "we" go for examples of doing that correctly. And would it not be nice to be able to go to a prewritten library of source code in assembler and pick out something nice that we could then drop in and use, without having to reinvent the wheel. With appropriate macros, structured code is certainly possible and maintainable. This would seem to be nothing more than a preference issue, wherein a flame or criticism is unjustified. Keep it up, Mr. Schaem, I'd be delighted to see examples of your code if you're willing to share them with us. Rob Peck
dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (07/02/89)
:In article <287@tardis.Tymnet.COM> jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes: :>In article <19917@cup.portal.com> stephan@cup.portal.com (Stephen Derek Schaem) writes: :>In reference to an IFF library written in C: :>> C? why not ASM?.... :> : :Rob Peck Writes: :[ opinions about large projects and the advantages of high level languages : and the disadvantages of using pure assembler languages omitted ] : :I, for one, am NOT about to discourage ANYONE who decides to work purely :in assembler and who, as well, is willing to make his work available to the :community at large. After all, if there is an occasion for a mix of C This is really a non-argument. People program in whatever language they feel is right for the job. I program that way. One might be able to argue that somebody or other doesn't program in sometypeorother high level language because the language they already know is too deeply ingrained in their heads for them to 'upgrade' but these fall into the 'personal' category and you had better know the guy you are talking about well if you intend to argue it. I began with 6502 which eventually became burned into my head. I then moved on to 68000, VAX, PDP11, Z8000 and C. It became quite obivous to me at the start (and this is due to being exposed to the UNIX enviroment which runs on more processors than you could ever hope to understand!) that writing in a more portable (read: higher level) language was the only way to go. Yet, there are still many cases where I wouldn't dream of writing in C. Most of the firmware software I've written (mainly for Motorola single chip microcomputers like the 68HC11 and 68705) is written in 68HC11 and 68705 and NOT in C even though C compilers are apparently available for these 8 bits processors. As far as Amiga programming goes I tend to want to keep my options open and possibly port to other (UNIX) machines so I write in C, plus the fact that through experience I have found that it is easier to keep track of large projects if written in C vs assembly. But I do have friends who discarded C and still program in assembly. The major reason for doing this has always been a dislike of the not-so- efficient code compilers generate. I myself still cringe when I see the quality of code compilers generate but I realize that in most cases the user of a program will not notice the difference, period; That the user of a program does not normally care if an executable winds up 2x or more larger. As time progresses, machines get faster and faster and have more memory and more memory and as the years go by there is even less of a reason to write in low level languages. But I respect anybody who writes in assembly because, in general, it takes more smarts to be able to write in assembly and even more to write large programs in assembly. There is a certain sense of pride in being able to optimize a routine down to nothing. (Unfortunately this is, in fact, where most of the self modifying code that breaks everybody's 020's and 030's comes from). -Matt
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (07/03/89)
In article <8907012244.AA21748@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: >their heads for them to 'upgrade' but these fall into the 'personal' >category and you had better know the guy you are talking about well if you >intend to argue it. Good point! > Yet, there are still many cases where I wouldn't dream of writing in >C. Most of the firmware software I've written (mainly for Motorola single >chip microcomputers like the 68HC11 and 68705) is written in 68HC11 and >68705 and NOT in C even though C compilers are apparently available for these >8 bits processors. Yes; certainly there are times when using assembler makes sense. I find it interesting that Sun is now using Forth in their firmware in their newest machines. Perhaps we're going in the direction of multiple language use in general. There's a lot to be said for this approach; all languages have their strong and their weak points. Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary