Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!ukma!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!remus.rutgers.edu!declan From: declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: IIgs Unzip thing Message-ID: Date: 31 Mar 91 09:08:27 GMT References: <15609@smoke.brl.mil> <1991Mar28.012635.14869@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <13156@ucrmath.ucr.edu> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 59 In article <13156@ucrmath.ucr.edu>, rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: > However, it is *almost* possible to write reasonably fast software in C or > Pascal (or whatever HLL) on a fast PC or MAC. This is rapidly outgrowing comp.sys.apple2; perhaps followups should be redirected to a more appropriate newsgroup... There's a substantial trade-off between development time and actual executing time: to write enough of an application in assembly to make a critical difference, it will often take you a considerably longer amount of time. (And of course, make your application harder to maintain and _greatly_ hinder portability) Now, company X is writing a C++ or Objective-C version of a similar application. They'll have it out before you, and people will buy it, and when yours comes out - six months or a year later - newer versions of the other application will already be out, with more features and goodies. Plus, they can update it more easily and port it to other platforms _much_ more easily than you can. Let's look at the NeXT, with an award-winning software development environment. Pure Objective-C. Yep, the performance isn't that great on a slow computer, but all NeXTs now have 68040s. And companies can bring their product to market in an unprecedented amount of time. Considerable benefit there: take a look at Improv, Word Perfect, and TouchType... Plus, you can recompile a NeXTstep application and run it (if written correctly) without any modification on an entirely different platform. That's portability for you. > One thing really amazes me: people's insistence on writing Operating Systems > in HLLs like C. It is actually *easier* to write most of the OS in assembly > than it is to write it in C. I'd like to see some references to back up that claim. In any case, take a look at Mach, for example. It's available for anonymous FTP from CMU. It's been compiled for a variety of machines, including SPARCstations, 386s, and so on - and they even have it running on Macs there, too. It's quite efficient for most tasks, and benefits from being written in a high level language - can you imagine trying to port a SPARCstation version to a Mac or 386? > Most people who refuse to use assembly language on anything, or even as > little as possible, are displaying their ignorance. All languages have > their place. I make a big stink about assembly because someone (a prophet > perhaps) needs to keep yelling in the wilderness supporting this subject. I think it's great that you're advocating learning assembly language; it's often helpful for computer science students to learn it. As a class at a university and as a concept, it's great. However, for real-world commercial applications, it's not. -Declan