Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ho95e.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ho95e!wcs
From: wcs@ho95e.UUCP (x0705)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: structured assembler
Message-ID: <454@ho95e.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Feb-86 22:08:15 EST
Article-I.D.: ho95e.454
Posted: Tue Feb  4 22:08:15 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 05:09:45 EST
References: <350@3comvax.UUCP> <463@kontron.UUCP> <1078@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: wcs@ho95e.UUCP (Bill Stewart 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs HO 2G202)
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 24

In article <1078@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>
>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.
Or their 4.2BSD Communications code to Xenix .... "What's a socket?"

>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.

Obviously, it makes sense to write it portably in C first - if some parts of it
are too slow, you can rewrite them afterwords.  Meanwhile, you'll have done
rational things with data structures, algorithms, user interfaces,...
things that are a real pain in assembler.  The system performs a lot better
when you write it correctly in a semi-fast language than when you write a poor
program in a faster language.
-- 
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G-202, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs