|Assembly language programming preferable to HLL ??? decwrl!nsc!nsta!instable.ether!orr (Orr Michael) (1986-12-03)|
|Re: Assembly language programming preferable to HLL ??? watmath!watnot!ccplumb (Colin Plumb) (1986-12-03)|
|Re: Assembly language programming preferable to HLL ??? harvard!seismo!utah-cs!shebs (1986-12-04)|
|Re: Assembly language programming preferable to HLL ??? harvard!dartvax!uvm-gen!cavrak (1986-12-05)|
|Re: Assembly language programming preferable to HLL ??? decvax!wanginst!infinet!rhorn (1986-12-11)|
|From:||Orr Michael <decwrl!nsc!nsta!instable.ether!orr>|
|Date:||3 Dec 86 14:47:58 GMT|
|Date:||3 Dec 86 14:47:56 GMT|
|Organization:||National Semiconductor (Israel) Ltd.|
Have you seen an article in "Computer Language" magazine
of Oct. 86 about "Universal assembly language" ?
This article claims that it is (always/usually) better to
use assembly language rather than HLL. (any). this is based on the
1. The ONLY siginificant advantage of HLL is a shorter CODING time.
2. Design, documentation, testing time is (almost) the same in both cases.
3. The assembly program will run 2-5 times faster.
4. So, after enough runs of the program the coding time gap will be
swallowed. From then on, the assembly program gains non-stop.
Seems to me that this does not hold water.
1. No mention of changes/maintenance issues anywhere.
2. I strongly question ALL of the above assumptions.
3. As one of the compiler writers for NS , If assembler programs
, as a rule , ran 2 times faster than our compiler,
I would be greatly surprized and FIX THE COMPILER !
The autor also suggests a "UNIVERSAL ASSEMBLER" to run on many machines.
I think FORTH already fits the bill, & has many other advantages.
Any Comments, netlanders ?
orr%nsta@nsc IBM's motto: Machines should work,
People should think.
Orr's remark: Neither do.
Disclaimer: Opinions, come home. All is forgiven. Papa.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.