Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!psuvax1!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: HLLs vs. Assembly Message-ID: <15741@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 7 Apr 91 00:50:05 GMT References: <15732@smoke.brl.mil> <13390@ucrmath.ucr.edu> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 12 In article <13390@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >ICON, 4GLs, SETL, and the like. Why don't we write applications in these >languages? You omitted one of the most important reasons in the real world: Most such languages are not sufficiently widely available. That is also true in spaces of any specific assembly language. Few programs that I write run on only the system they were intially implemented for; most of them end up being heavily used on a large number of quite different computer systems, ranging from Apple IIs to Cray-2s. SETL or iAPX366 assembler would have been an utter waste of time.