Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!spock!kim!kim From: kim@kim.uunet.uu.net (Kim Letkeman) Newsgroups: comp.realtime Subject: Re: Software primitives for real-time programming languages Message-ID: Date: 28 Sep 90 15:53:01 GMT References: <12682@cs.utexas.edu> <1844@tuvie> <12712@cs.utexas.edu> <1424@umriscc.isc.umr.edu> Sender: kim@spock Organization: Public Switching, MITEL Corporation, Kanata, Ontario, Canada Lines: 25 In-reply-to: rajuk@umree.isc.umr.edu's message of 21 Sep 90 15:10:32 GMT In article <1424@umriscc.isc.umr.edu> rajuk@umree.isc.umr.edu (Raju Khubchandani) writes: | I have read more than I have hands-on experience with programming languages, | but would anybody disagree that the fastest way to execute is using the assembly | level language of any processor? In other words, what I am saying is that for a | given processor and clock/bus speed the fastest way to execute is to do assembly | level programming. I know this is a lot of programming effort compared to using | a high level language, but the objective is to extract maximum juice from your | hardware. Read "Software Tools" by Kernhigan & Plauger. Their book makes very clear what experience teaches us all. Specific languages have nowhere near the impact that algorithms have on the overall performance of a program or system. Since assembly language tends to obscure the algorithm (with as much as ten lines of code for every one in other languages), this would seem to imply that the programmer in assembly runs the risk of using an inefficient algorithm. Anyway .... with horsepower so cheap these days, and manpower so expensive, high level languages pay better in the long run. Kim -- Kim Letkeman mitel!spock!kim@uunet.uu.net