Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!ucsd!ucrmath!gibson!rhyde From: rhyde@gibson.ucr.edu (randy hyde) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: HLLs vs. Assembly Message-ID: <13491@ucrmath.ucr.edu> Date: 10 Apr 91 17:23:32 GMT References: <15732@smoke.brl.mil> <13390@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <15741@smoke.brl.mil> Sender: news@ucrmath.ucr.edu Reply-To: rhyde@gibson.ucr.edu (randy hyde) Lines: 18 Obviously, if you need portability, you would *never* consider using assembly language. Gee, even machines with the same processor (Mac, Amiga, ST) don't allow you to easily port assembly language programs. If you must sacrifice your software on the altar of portability, you will not be able to use assembly language. Those of us who *use* software, as opposed to *write* software could really care less about portability. If I own an IBM PC, I could really care less if Lotus 1-2-3 runs on a Mac, under UNIX, or on an Apple II gs, I only care that it runs on a PC. Sure, there are some people out there who work on different platforms and may need the cross-platform portability, but they are a very small minority. The rest of us could care less (I work on several platforms and I could care less, for example). I'd rather see each program optimized for the particular platform than turned into generic mush which runs on everything.