Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!rosalia
From: rosalia@reed.UUCP (Mark Galassi)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Re: Assembly VS HOL C is both
Message-ID: <1616@reed.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 04:05:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: reed.1616
Posted: Thu Jun  6 04:05:30 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 01:36:48 EDT
References: <439@wdl1.UUCP> <1366@ecsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: rosalia@reed.UUCP (Mark Galassi)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Lines: 15

In article <1366@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes:
>What I would like to see is a good alternative to assembler language,
>one that would allow high-level constructs when they are useful and low
>level machine control when that it useful.  It is obvious that such a
>language would have to be machine specific, though it is also
>reasonable to suspect that some degree of portability in syntax could
>be achieved (there have been portably assemblers written, believe it or
>not).
>D Gary Grady
>Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC  27706
>(919) 684-3695
>USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary

That is what I have always thought C was: a language that allows you to
do all you want to the machine (almost) and yet has high level constructs.