Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucsd!ucrmath!koufax!rhyde
From: rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: programming in assembly faster than HLL
Message-ID: <14521@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Date: 17 May 91 16:46:32 GMT
References: <3579@kluge.fiu.edu>
Sender: news@ucrmath.ucr.edu
Reply-To: rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Lines: 24


I'm not sure I completely understand your comments, but the way I see
it, you're claiming that if assembly language programmers limit
themselves to using only those features in BASIC, they cannot program
any faster in assembly than in BASIC.  (I assume you're discussing
development time, not run time).  If you limit yourself to the features
of any HLL, there is little chance you can develop your code faster in
assembly than in the HLL.  For doing things a particular HLL is
well-designed for, it kicks butt on doing the same thing in assembly. 
If you are going to force restrictions, assembly always loses.  People
who claim that they can develop code faster in assembly than some HLL (a
very elite breed, I might point out) rely on the fact that a single HLL
isn't good for everything.  Once you leave the paradigm that that
particular HLL is good for, developing code becomes as difficult, if not
more difficult, than programming in assembly.  Good, no expert, assembly
language programmers take this into consideration when making their claims.

I will say one thing about BASIC: depending, of course, on whose version
you're using, BASIC is very limiting.  With the exception of FP
arithmetic, most good 65816 assembly language programmers with a decent
library (see the ANIX.SHK file on ucrmath for a limited example) can
crank out a complex program as fast, or faster, than they could in
Applesoft BASIC.  Yes, there are better BASICs, but there are better
machines (e.g., 68000, 32000, etc.) too.