Re: Assemblers

ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU!unisoft!gethen!farren (Michael J. Farren)
26 Dec 87 04:43:49 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Assemblers culdev1! (1987-12-17)
Re: Assemblers franka@mntgfx.MENTOR.COM (1987-12-23)
Assemblers culdev1! (1987-12-23)
Re: Assemblers harvard!rutgers!hao!scicom!qetzal!upba!ugn!mcmi!de (1987-12-24)
Re: Assemblers ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU!unisoft!gethen!farren (1987-12-26)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 26 Dec 87 04:43:49 GMT
References: <816@ima.ISC.COM>
From: ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU!unisoft!gethen!farren (Michael J. Farren)
Organization: Sci-Fido - Unix in Oakland

In article <816@ima.ISC.COM> watmath!looking!brad (Brad Templeton) writes:

>The list is shrinking, but we should still remember that today, in terms
>of customer demand, most software is written in assembler.

Considering software technology solely as a function of total units sold
of particular programs is highly misleading. All of the examples you have
given of best-selling software written in assembler were designed to run on
8-bit machines, specifically the Z-80/8080 and the 8088 of the IBM PC. For
these machines, efficient HLLs either are not, or were not (Lotus, MS-DOS),

If and when compilers of sufficient efficiency become available, as they
are beginning to for the IBM PC, I would expect the use of assembler-
only coding to drop significantly. I doubt, for example, that the
same analysis, if made in five years, would show the same results.

Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just
{ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate
                unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday."
gethen! | Tom Reingold, from alt.flame

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.