Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!network.ucsd.edu!celit!dave
From: dave@fps.com (Dave Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: It looks like he's at it again!
Message-ID: <9896@celit.fps.com>
Date: 11 Jul 90 02:46:58 GMT
References: <2328@l.cc.purdue.edu> <1990Jul10.072443.4844@cs.UAlberta.CA> <63692@sgi.sgi.com>
Sender: daemon@fps.com
Reply-To: dave@fps.com (Dave Smith)
Distribution: comp.arch
Organization: FPS Computing Inc., San Diego CA
Lines: 31

In article <63692@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes:
 >In article <1990Jul10.072443.4844@cs.UAlberta.CA> cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw) writes:
 >>The basic problem with assembly coding by hand vs assembly coding by compiler
 >>is that IT DOESN'T SCALE. There are extremely limited application areas where
 >>coding by hand is much faster, and you, Herman, live in one.
 >
 >Perhaps they are extremely limited, but they are sometimes economically
 >important.  Some examples:
 >
 >	Graphics Rendering
 >	Seismic Deconvolution
 >	Audio Signal Processing
 >	Business Record Sorting

Hmmm...I don't know a whole lot about these fields, but I have worked with
several of our customers in the seismic processing industry.  As far as
I can tell they don't do any assembly work.  They may write some vector
code, but not much of that either.  They do love to take their dusty
deck FORTRAN jobs and run them through highly optimizing compilers, though.
I wonder why that is?

For 90% of programmers assembly is more trouble than it's worth.  (Though I 
do remember that on the Apple II I prefered assembly to Applesoft because 
it was easier to make the machine do what I wanted :-) ) Computer 
manufacturers market to the 90% and will build machines suited to the 90%. 

--
David L. Smith
FPS Computing, San Diego
ucsd!celerity!dave or dave@fps.com
***QUOTE CENSORED BY ORDER OF REV. MOM***