Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!midway!mimsy!haven!ncifcrf!lhc!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: HLLs vs Assembly
Message-ID: <15910@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 20 Apr 91 20:19:56 GMT
References: <9104181707.AA29942@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 22

In article <9104181707.AA29942@beaver.cs.washington.edu> davewh@microsoft.UUCP writes:
>{
>	struct foo TheNewFoo;
>	return &TheNewFoo;
>}
>Do you know why this will FAIL?

Sure, but it is not necessary to understand code generation to avoid
that pitfall.  The relevant knowledge concerns the concept of the
lifetime of an instance of an automatic variable, which can be dealt
with on a purely abstract (HLL) level.  A more detailed understanding
of one possible method of implementation might help one better
appreciate why the language has such a restriction; however, if you
simply are careful to obey the language rules you will avoid such
problems.

I agree with the general sentiment that a well-rounded background in
practical aspects of computing can be helpful in making better use of
computers.  I haven't been arguing against exposure to machine
architecture or assembly language.  What I have been arguing against
is that assembly language should be the language of choice for any
significant fraction of computing application implementations.