Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: End this nonsense comparison
Message-ID: <14813@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 10 Jan 91 18:01:10 GMT
References: <1991Jan5.014646.26135@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <10904@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 45

In article <10904@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) 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.

But it truly is easier to develop reliable applications in C, particularly
when they are massive.  When you add transportability to the picture, the
balance tips so far in the direction of C that assembly language simply is
not justified for the production of generally useful applications that are
potential candidates for porting to (or from) other platforms.  Only for
the single-machine-forever hobbyist would a substantial amount of use of
assembly language be the most effective use of programmer time.

>>> full of it..
>I couldn't agree more.  Our wonderful University system and compiler vendors
>have grossly overstated the advantages of HLLs and "C" in particular.

Undoubtedly American universities are rife with incompetent instructors
and vendors are self-serving; however, as a professional programmer with
over 25 years of computing experience, who has used dozens of languages
including many radically assembly languages on a large number of quite
distinct architectures and operating systems, I must say (along with many
other practicing professionals) that software development in C is far
superior in almost every way to development in assembler.  The only thing
assembler has going for it is direct access to baroque machine-dependent
instructions, such as IO port access opcodes, and occasional use when a
bottleneck really demands hyperoptimization.  (For the IIGS, this would
for example include the "blit" aspect of updateing the graphics display.)
Of course, when implementing an operating system or HLL run-time support
system, a certain amount of assembler is normally required; however, the
bulk of systems implementation is much better performed using a systems
implementation language (notably C) than in assembler.

>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.

It's not a matter of laziness, but of effective use of one's limited
lifespan.  When I can produce (AND MAINTAIN, an important point) dozens
of applications for use on a wide variety of systems using a HLL in the
same time that I could produce fewer, less maintainable applcations on a
single platform, what would you think I ought to choose?

There is no point in being macho.