Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: structured assembler
Message-ID: <1078@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jan-86 16:54:07 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.1078
Posted: Mon Jan 27 16:54:07 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 04:37:27 EST
References: <350@3comvax.UUCP> <463@kontron.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Distribution: net
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 22


In article <463@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> Is it worth it for portability to have
>> programs that run at half the speed (or less) than the computer is
>> capable of (or will it matter if they make computers go fast enough)?
>
>Ask all those companies that right now are wishing they could move their
>8088 assembler language programs over to the Atari.

As an employee of such a company (although there is not (yet) any strong
desire to run on Ataris), let me attempt an answer.  Let me emphasize that
this is my answer, not that of my company.

Personally, I believe we would have been better off writing our product in
C, and I would certainly support writing any new products in C.  (The
improvements in processor speed do make a difference.)  However, if writing
it in C would have meant it ran half as fast, it would have been a mistake.
If Multimate(tm) had run half as fast, it would not have sold, and we would
not be in business.  Better a salable product in a limited market than an
unsalable product in an unlimited market.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108