Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dino!sharkey!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!apple!ames!vsi1!ubvax!ardent!peck!rap
From: rap@peck.ardent.com (Rob Peck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Let's give Stephen reasons for working in high-level languages
Message-ID: <7091@ardent.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jun 89 17:56:36 GMT
References: <945@ultb.UUCP> <2173@hp-sdd.hp.com> <14857@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <19917@cup.portal.com> <287@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
Sender: news@ardent.UUCP
Reply-To: rap@peck.ardent.com (Rob Peck)
Organization: Ardent Computer Corp., Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 26

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