Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 Apollo 3/7/85; site apollo.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!wanginst!apollo!eric
From: eric@apollo.uucp (Eric Peters)
Newsgroups: net.works
Subject: Re: Fie on assembly language?
Message-ID: <25576eef.39c@apollo.uucp>
Date: Fri, 15-Mar-85 14:24:52 EST
Article-I.D.: apollo.25576eef.39c
Posted: Fri Mar 15 14:24:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 22:42:34 EST
References: <792@topaz.ARPA> <836@ames.UUCP> <425@terak.UUCP>
Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, Mass.
Lines: 27

> But as a general rule, the reason for *not* using assembly language is
> because of the initial programming costs.  Once the program has already
> been written and those costs incurred, assembly is almost always
> superior to higher-level languages.

Sorry, but I beg to differ:  The initial programming costs are nothing
next to the costs of keeping a program alive and useful.  There seems
to be a myth out there that "real" programs are written, and then no one
ever looks at them again (the "dusty decks" hypothesis).  In fact, the
real world changes so fast that few working programs can stand still
for long -- even if they have no bugs.

I do happen to believe that assembly language has its uses; but more
often than not, a high level language will result in a better solution
over the life of a program.  It will track the real world.

And I'll only barely mention that high level language programs can
start out better, simply because the programmer didn't have to spend
so much of his valuable time worrying about the machine he is coding,
so he spent more time worrying about the application.

And I won't even mention portability at all.  :-)

So I guess "superior" really reflects the value system you're using.

Eric Peters  (...decvax!wanginst!apollo!eric)
Apollo Computer Inc.,   Chelmsford, MA 01824