Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!dahlia!wjbaird From: wjbaird@dahlia.uwaterloo.ca (Warren Baird) Subject: Re: End this nonsense comparison Message-ID: <1991Jan6.201242.10199@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes) Organization: University of Waterloo References: <1991Jan5.014646.26135@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 20:12:42 GMT Lines: 91 In article <1991Jan5.014646.26135@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes: > >Now we come to assembly vs. C. Someone who chooses to program in C because >"it's easier to program in C" is full of it. Assembly language is EASY >to program in, especially on machines line the '816 that were (sort of) >designed to be programmed in assembly. With good enough macro libraries, >there's almost no reason NOT to program in assembly. Sure you have to plan >a little better (because you can be totally free-form), but you can also >optimize the hell out of it. I agree completely with your opinion of the relationship between 386 chips and the 816... However I don't agree with your discusion of C vs. assembly... Assembly may be _easy_ to program in (I haven't done much assembly, but from what I've seen this may be true), but it's non-portable... It's also a bit of a dead end in the real (read Unix) world... If I write a program for the Sun 3 that I used at work, and half or all of it is in assembly, I'm out of luck if I want to move it to any other Unix machine (probably even other 68020 based machines, but I don't know enough about 020 assembly to guarentee that...). It may work REALLY fast, but I've cut out a HUGE section of my possible user base, or I need to recode the assembly stuff for each possible architecture, something that would take thousands of extra person-hours. There is also the consideration of which is more useful in the job market... If I go to an interview for a computer job, and I tell the interviewer that I can't program C, but that I can program 65816 assembly... I'd probably not get the job... If I walk in and say that I can program in C, I think I'd have a FAR better chance at getting the job... C gives you all of the functionality and power of assembler, but it also provides the flexibility and portability of a HLL (more so than many HLLs, in fact...) I agree that for a job that is TOTALLY speed-dependant, assembly is a better choice... but for most "real-world" applications, I think that C with a GOOD optimizing compiler (and maybe a few essential routines in assembly...) is a far better solution. > >Now- C's not all bad. In fact, I'm releasing my TelCom program to show that >REAL, USABLE applications can be written in C on the GS. GScii is another >example of a program written in a HLL that performs well- and it will even >better once a few choice routines are rewritten in assembly. I'm interested in seeing Telcom... > >And here we come to the heart of the matter- on the Apple II, people are >still willing to write in assembly. In the rest of the world, programmers >have become lazy. AutoCad for the IBM will soon stop supporting '286s >entirely- becuase the program is too 'complex' to run at good speed. >In actuality, the programmers are too lazy to write assembly code to speed >up critical sections. I don't like IBM's being referred to as "the rest of the world..." There are a lot of IBM PC compatibles out there, but I believe that they have reached (or are near reaching) the peak of their power and usability... I think (and hope) that in the reasonable future, the X86 family's ugly architecture will catch up with it, and the IBM PC will (finally) die out... > >Well, I've ragged in a national forum long enough. Me too... > >My point? Just that you get what you pay for, and considering everything, >the GS is not that bad a deal. I agree TOTALLY with this point, but I'm begining to feel the pressure of Apple's lack of support... I'm actually starting to wish that I had bought an Amiga instead... I really like my GS, but it's being used now mainly as a terminal, a word processor, and as a games machine... An Amiga would be as effective for the first two, and has more software available for the last... > > >-- >Jawaid Bazyar | Being is Mathematics >Senior/Computer Engineering | Love is Chemistry >jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | Sex is Physics > Apple II Forever! | Babies are engineering -- Warren Baird, 2A Co-op Math Computer Science, U(Waterloo) wjbaird@dahlia.uwaterloo.ca ...utzoo!watmath.uwaterloo.edu!dahlia!wjbaird An elephant is a mouse with an operating system...