Xref: utzoo comp.arch:17053 comp.lang.misc:5141
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik
From: cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: It looks like he's at it again!
Summary: Not every tool is used all the time
Message-ID: <2338@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 11 Jul 90 15:22:42 GMT
References: <2328@l.cc.purdue.edu> <1990Jul10.072443.4844@cs.UAlberta.CA> <9896@celit.fps.com>
Followup-To: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Lines: 38

In article <9896@celit.fps.com>, dave@fps.com (Dave Smith) writes:
> 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.

			.....................

> 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%. 

I would certainly agree that for 90% of the programming assembly is more
trouble than it is worth, maybe a lot more.  I disagree for 90% of the
programmers.  And even these programmers use library tools, which should
not be in that fraction.  Those programmers, and users of their programs,
benefit from efficient software produced by the few others.  I would not
want my automobile designed by those who know as little automotive engineering
as I know.  I would hope that there are "unorthodox" people on the design team,
who can think of how to improve things by doing the "unheard of."

How many of the 90% do not even know of the existence of these possibilities?
Are we making it difficult for them to understand them by teaching the present
HLLs?

I have advocated that the HLLs remove their limitations in such a way as
to enable easier inclusion of machine features into the program.  Also, that
the assembler syntax be changed to make the use of these features much easier,
so that Dave Smith's observations about the Apple II can be readily used.  In
addition, that computer manufacturers include the hardware; computing chips
are a small part of the cost of computers, and even a VCISC coprocessor would
be relatively cheap.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)	{purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!cik(UUCP)