Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucrmath!gibson!rhyde
From: rhyde@gibson.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: HLLs vs. Assembly
Message-ID: <13202@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 91 01:54:11 GMT
References: <15609@smoke.brl.mil> <1991Mar28.012635.14869@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <13156@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <1991Mar30.080418.16299@ee.ualberta.ca>
Sender: news@ucrmath.ucr.edu
Reply-To: rhyde@gibson.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Lines: 16


If I was a hardware manufacturer writing an OS for an Apple II gs, the last
thing I'd worry about is portability.  Performance of my hardware is a much
greater concern.  That's why Apple has written their OSes in assembly in the
past.  Hopefully they will not succumb to the HLL trait.
It's always amazing to me how much more money people are willing to spend on
faster CPUs (8088->80286->80386->80486) but they're unwilling to spend more
money on software to develop it in assembly rather than C.  I'm not talking
about one-of-a-kind programs here, I'm talking about high volume applications
like word processors, spreadsheets, and the like.  Guess the programmers never
really have to *use* the software they write.
OSes are the backbone of a machine.  Furthermore, they are *pure overhead*.
A high performance one will not speed up applications programs.  A low
performance
one, however, can cripple applications.  When I'm sitting at a machine running
applications I could care less how portable the OS is.  I want it to be fast!