Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucrmath!trout From: trout@ucrmath.ucr.edu (michael griffith) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Computer Architecture question -- Daye Haynie Message-ID: <14750@ucrmath.ucr.edu> Date: 27 May 91 23:26:02 GMT References: <1991May15.112823.22229@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991May19.123429.19440@sugar.hackercorp.com> Sender: news@ucrmath.ucr.edu Organization: University of California, Riverside Lines: 22 In article <1991May19.123429.19440@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >It's easier to screw up in assembly than C, in C than a B&D language like >Pascal, in Pascal than C++, in C++ than SmallTalk, in SmallTalk than really >high level database/dataflow languages like the UNIX shell, and so on... > >ALWAYS use the highest level language available that can get the job done. This theory only holds if you are a screw-up. Assembly is much faster and smaller than anything a complier or interpreter could ever write. HLLs, on the other hand, provide abstraction, ease of programming, and portablility. There really is a decision that needs to be made before you start any project. That decision is a choice of a language. Don't be lulled into thinking that a language is an automatic one -- it isn't. ALWAYS use the language that is right for the job. Michael A. Griffith trout@ucrmath.ucr.edu "My computer is better than your computer." -- Amiga and NeXT junkies.