Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:21110 comp.lang.misc:3388
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnewsc!nevin1
From: nevin1@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (nevin.j.liber)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc
Subject: C is NOT a portable assembler (was: want to know)
Message-ID: <2659@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 89 00:43:58 GMT
References: <1496@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (nevin.j.liber,55528,ih,4f410,312 979 4751)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 34

In article <1496@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>No, the question is not a JOKE.  It is a stupidity in UNIX which causes the
>problem.  I have used other systems in which the main program could have
>any name whatever, and even in which the entry need not be to a main program,
>while a main program is present.  I have even used it.

It has finally dawned on me on what Herman Rubin thinks C is.  Now I
know why stuff like entry points and hardware registers and NAND
gates bother him.  He must have heard the phrase "C is kind of a
portable assembler".  This phrase is a misnomer!

C is closer to (and I really hate to call it this because I KNOW that
someone is going to misinterpret me) a portable assembly language than
a portable assembler.  C defines a virtual machine which maps fairly
efficiently onto a wide variety of current computer architectures.
What this allows one to do is write code which will work unaltered on a
lot of different machines.  This is why the implementations of other
languages (such as C++, Eiffel(?), etc.) compile (and I mean
compile, not translate.  Compilers output syntactically correct code, be
it assembler, p-code, or C; translators may rely on the post-processor
to catch the syntactical errors) to C; it is portable.

Now let's look at what Herman wants.  He wants to be able to
hand-optimize his code; to know which variables go into which
registers, what branch instructions are used, etc.  In other words, he
wants an extra-fancy macro assembler!  C is not this, and it will never
be this!  He complains that he can't do everything in C that he can in
assembler.  Of course not!  C was never intended to replace an
assembler (except perhaps on a PDP-11 :-))!  Please stop complaining
that C doesn't fit your want of a super-duper macro assembler; C isn't
one, it is a *language*.
-- 
NEVIN ":-)" LIBER  AT&T Bell Laboratories  nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM  (312) 979-4751