Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: HLLs vs. Assembly
Message-ID: <15733@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 6 Apr 91 00:47:21 GMT
References: <13275@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <15709@smoke.brl.mil> <13348@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 19

In article <13348@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes:
>One other comment about the literature you are obviously refering too:
>keep in mind that the "C" which UNIX was originally re-written in was
>an over-glorified assembler for the PDP-11.  C's syntax (e.g., ++i) was
>designed to take advantage of the PDP-11's instruction set and hardware.

While C is a good match for the PDP-11, it is as equally good match for
the VAX and MC68000 instruction sets.  Most modern CPUs were designed,
unlike the afore-mentioned, with the idea that the majority of programs
for them would be coded in HLLs, and thus if their designers did a decent
job they should also be good matches for HLLs, certainly including C,
which is the most popular of all HLLs these days.

As I mentioned in private correspondence with you and also, as I recall,
some time ago in this newsgroup, the 65816 instruction set does not do a
very good job of supporting HLLs, so there are cases where assembly code
is preferred in Apple II applications (such as display animation loops).
But that does not support the argument that assembly coding should be
preferred in most cases.