Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm370
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!phil
From: phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN)
Subject: Re: why code in 370 Assembler
Message-ID: <1991Apr23.190810.16593@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <1991Apr17.120304.16874@mtu.edu> <1612@msa3b.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1991 19:08:10 GMT
Lines: 30

kevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes:

>matt@mtu.edu (Matthew T. Kromer) writes:

>...
>>I really find that the 370 instruction set is rich enough that I never miss
>>higher level languages....

>In fact, I believe C to be a LOWER level language than 370 BAL. After all,
>BAL has a block move instruction (MVC or MVCL) where C has to call a
>SUBROUTINE to move a block (movemem or strcpy). Pre-ANSI C and BAL do about
>the same level of error checking. :-)

But that makes C fit my definition of a HIGH level language.

You see, the difference between low level and high level, as I think of
it anyway, is NOT how much you can do in one instruction, but rather
how much control you have over HOW things are done.  C gives you LESS
control because you don't get to choose the precise instruction.  Higher
languages like Pascal and ADA give you even less control and that lack
of control starts to span over into things like data representation itself.

To me, a high level language is a tradeoff of control for other things that
are supposed to be the advantage in high level languages (whether they actually
succeed or not).
-- 
 /***************************************************************************\
/ Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu   |  Guns don't aim guns at  \
\ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks  |  people; CRIMINALS do!!  /
 \***************************************************************************/