Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!rice!libya.rice.edu
From: cliffc@libya.rice.edu (Cliff Click)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Once more into the niche!
Message-ID: <10185@brazos.Rice.edu>
Date: 24 Jul 90 20:36:50 GMT
References: <2392@l.cc.purdue.edu> <1990Jul24.030035.9169@cs.UAlberta.CA>
Sender: root@rice.edu
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 28

>In article <2392@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>> [ Why he hacks in assembly, and why the ability to do so should be taught. ]

In article <1990Jul24.030035.9169@cs.UAlberta.CA> cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw) writes:
> [ A lot of stuff I agree with, about the purpose of compilers in the world. ]
>
>But the punch line is that you *can't* guarantee that
>you've gotten every optimization available without personally looking at
>every inch of code with the checklist for your bag of tricks. Which is what
>a compiler does anyway, so why do it yourself?

Ahh, but here Herman's point is correct:  Herman (and human programmers
everywhere) have many, many more "bags of tricks" than any compiler.  If the
cost of doing your job in a HLL & compiling & running for time T is GREATER
than the cost of doing your job in assembly & running for time T/10, then
assembly MAKES SENSE (pick any factor other than 10 you might want, and I'm
also assuming TIME == MONEY).

There *IS* a middle ground; sometimes it's assembly, sometimes it's HLL, 
sometimes a little of both.

>>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
>Chris Shaw     University of Alberta
Cliff Click

-- 
Cliff Click                
cliffc@owlnet.rice.edu