Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dartvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!dartvax!chuck
From: chuck@dartvax.UUCP (Chuck Simmons)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Re: Assembly VS HOL: Having it both
Message-ID: <3209@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Jun-85 17:32:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.3209
Posted: Sat Jun  1 17:32:46 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 00:44:21 EDT
References: <439@wdl1.UUCP> <1366@ecsvax.UUCP>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 20

> To restate in a sentence:  I'd like a language that gives me the power
> and convenience and readability of a high-level language but the
> low-level control of an assembler.  I see no reason for incompadibility
> between those two needs.
> D Gary Grady

Why can't we write most of the program in our favorite high-level
language and then write critical portions of the program as subroutines
in the local assembler?  This requires that the assembler have a way of
specifying type information, etc to the linker, and it requires that the
subroutine interface of the high-level language be well documented.  On
the other hand, to port the program to another machine would (hopefully)
require only rewriting the assembler routines; which we would expect to 
be short and well-written.  (This is how we write programs around here.)

On the other hand, it has been argued that C is a high-level language.
Meanwhile, C appears to provide the programmer with the low-level control
of an assembler.

Chuck Simmons