Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!fernwood!uupsi!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Choosing a language (ML vs HLL)
Message-ID: <16005@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 30 Apr 91 15:24:24 GMT
References: <8867@crash.cts.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <8867@crash.cts.com> psonnek@pro-mansion.cts.com (Patrick Sonnek) writes:
>And those HLL programmers who do understand all the internals, are for the
>most part to lazy to program good assembler.

Ah, so there's supposed to be something wrong with taking the approach
that requires less work to get the job done?

I've programmed for twenty-five years, in literally dozens of distinct
assembly languages over a vast variety of machine architectures.  Yet
you won't find me using assembly language very often these days; I
don't have the time for macho bullshit.  I have applications to produce.