Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!NISC.SRI.COM!cwilson
From: cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: languages used with commercial software
Message-ID: <14615@fs2.NISC.SRI.COM>
Date: 24 Mar 90 16:15:28 GMT
References: <9003232001.AA00592@apple.com> <12423@smoke.BRL.MIL> <7494@latcs1.oz.au>
Reply-To: cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson)
Organization: Network Information Center; SRI International
Lines: 54

In article <7494@latcs1.oz.au> stephens@latcs1.oz.au (Philip J Stephens) writes:
>In article <12423@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>> There are so many drawbacks to coding in assembler (as compared to a
>> higher-level language, C in particular) that there are only two reasons
>> you should do it:

	Blah.  Show me a C compiler for the GS that is as simple
	to use and as stable as Merlin 16+, and I'll consider moving to C.
>> 
>> 	(1)  For certain operations it may be necessary to work at that
>> 	level.  
>> 
>> 	(2)  There may be cases where it is essential to squeeze as much
>> 	speed as possible out of a given computer. 
>
>        (3)  Coding in assembler _can_ be fun.
>
>   Come on guys, maybe you don't ever want to write assembly code for a VAX
>or a Pyramid; but an Apple ][ machine is different.  It's no big deal to
>develop programs in 6502 assembler on an Apple ][+, for instance; particularly
>if you want to write an arcade game running at 1 MHz.  

	(4)   Coding in assembly is _always_ faster.

I'm not saying it's easier, mind you, but it's faster.  Although I haven't
mucked with any high level languages for a couple years now, when I was 
taking/teaching a high school pascal course the compiler was unbelievably
slow.  And the resulting code wasn't all that swift.  

>   People who say you should never write in assembly unless you have no other
>choice are quite often reciting what they've learnt in Computer Science
>classes.  (I'm not refering to the poster here!!!  This is from past
>experience).

Same here.

>  Those Apple hackers that have been writing 6502 code since year
>10 onwards would tend to beg to differ.  I am one of those people.
>   As far as I'm concerned, 6502 assembly is just another language.  
>A low-level language, yes, but a language nevertheless.  When you have been
>using it as long as I have, the "difficulty" in programming 6502 code pretty
>much disappears in a puff of smoke.  Along with all of the so-called
>disadvantages.

Heck yes.  Get enough macro libraries, and you can do anything. :)
Besides, with the state of today's high-level compilers for the GS
(C, pascal), I'll stick with assembler.

--Chan
			   ................
    Chan Wilson -- cwilson@nisc.sri.com <!> I don't speak for SRI.
Janitor/Architect of comp.binaries.apple2 archive on wuarchive.wustl.edu
  "And now, the penguin on top of the television set will explode."
			   ................