Assembly language programming preferable to HLL ???

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
following claims:


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