Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!agate!ucbvax!NIHCU.BITNET!RAF
From: RAF@NIHCU.BITNET (Roger Fajman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm370
Subject: Re:  memo on my structure assembler macros
Message-ID: <9104232309.AA03424@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 23 Apr 91 23:06:50 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: IBM 370 Assembly Programming Discussion List
              <ASM370@OHSTVMA.BITNET>
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 24

> Rojer, maybe you're used to it, but to my eye that ALP code is
> actually harder to read than well-written normal ASM.
>
> /Leonard

Well, in many respects it's a different language -- just one that has a
lot of similarity to assembler.  No one expects to understand C or PL/I
programs without having studied the language at all.  Some people like
ALP, some don't -- just like anything else.  I found the examples with
the structure macros difficult to follow, but I'm sure it would be much
easier if I were used to them.

I've been writing 360/370 assembler code since 1965 and found it
awkward for writing and maintaining large systems, with the flow of
control being a big part (but not all) of the problem.  Apparently
others agree or there wouldn't be so many control structure macro
packages around.  By the way, ALP is based on a package called AL
originially developed at the Mitre Corporation.  We took it and greatly
enhanced it (500 lines of PL/I became over 3000).  If I were picking a
language to write a large system in today, I might well choose C, in
spite of the things I don't care for about it.  C was not available in
1973, when ALP was done.

Roger