Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb
From: ddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: assembly vs HLL
Message-ID: <282@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 14:49:18 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.282
Posted: Mon Jan 21 14:49:18 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 19:15:50 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 23

>			HAH!!!!!!!!
>
>	For the bare language, I might agree. However, any macro programmer
>worth the name after a year or so will have developed a set of macros
>that enable high level constructs but still allow precise control of
>the machine. I personally have a set of macros that give me more

AAAARGH!!!!!  One of the most common complaints I hear from those
who must maintain code is that the programmer had developed his own
personal language out of macros.  THIS DOESN'T MAKE CODE EASIER
TO MAINTAIN, IT MAKES IT FAR, FAR, HARDER.

Furthermore, developing macros can make an assembler look more 
structured and introduce some higher-level concepts, but it normally
makes the code produced LESS good than hand coding.

BLISS is nice because it gives you the low-level control of the
machine WITHIN THE LANGUAGE, and without sacrificing global
optimizations.  (BLISS is also not nice for some reasons, but
they are better known and less interesting.)

		-- David Dyer-Bennet
		-- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb