Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jh4o+ From: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: HLLs vs. Assembly Message-ID: Date: 6 Apr 91 02:41:37 GMT References: <1991Mar30.080418.16299@ee.ualberta.ca> <1029@stewart.UUCP> <13345@ucrmath.ucr.edu>, <15732@smoke.brl.mil> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 29 In-Reply-To: <15732@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: > In article <13345@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: > >X-Window is a good example of what happens when you try to write such code > >in C. It's wonderful that X is portable, but you need a H**L of a machine > >run in reasonably well. I'd hate to imagine a PC (<386), Mac, or *egads* > >an Apple IIgs where the windowing software was written in C. > > Again I have to challenge this, using real-world evidence. The bitmap > graphics interface (including multitasked windows) I'm using while > typing this has nearly all of its firmware and applications written in > C, and it uses a processor and clock comparable with low-end Macintosh > models. Its interactive performance far exceeds that of X11 terminals, > and also exceeds that of the Macintosh Finder and of Microsoft Windows > on a 33MHz IBM PC/AT clone. If it had had to have been programmed in > assembler, I doubt very much that it would ever have been developed. > > X11 indeed suffers from several problems, but none of them are due to > use of C. Me too. The machine I'm sitting at (a DECstation 3100) uses a RISC architecture that no one in his right mind would want to program in assembly for. The C compiler generates much more efficient code than any human programmer I know, and I know plenty of decent human programmers. -------------------- Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11 Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS >> Apple // Forever!!! <<