Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: languages used with commercial software
Message-ID: <12428@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 24 Mar 90 22:58:39 GMT
References: <9003232001.AA00592@apple.com> <12423@smoke.BRL.MIL> <7494@latcs1.oz.au>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 17

In article <7494@latcs1.oz.au> stephens@latcs1.oz.au (Philip J Stephens) writes:
>   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.

I didn't spell out the disadvantages, but for my purposes one of the most
important ones is that assembly code is vastly less portable than well-
designed C code.  If you only have one type of computer AND if you don't
expect to have to use your application with another type for many years
to come, then portability will not be a significant issue for you.  But
many of us deal with lots of computer types and wish to obtain maximum
leverage for the time we invest in programming.  For us, portability is
quite important, with the consequence that we don't spend any more time
writing assembly code than is forced upon us by circumstances such as
those I outlined in my previous posting on this topic.