Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tesla.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sbcs!tesla!wrolf
From: wrolf@tesla.UUCP (Wrolf Courtney)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: structured assembler
Message-ID: <325@tesla.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Feb-86 03:31:03 EST
Article-I.D.: tesla.325
Posted: Tue Feb 11 03:31:03 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Feb-86 16:48:41 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer Science Dept, SUNY@Stony Brook
Lines: 59


[Go ahead - eat my shield!]

In the latest of this saga mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) writes in
<409@3comvax.UUCP>:

> Just look at the MAC and how slow it is (ruins the friendly interface) and
> look at MS DOS (written in assembler), and the difference is 180K of object
> code (MS DOS is pretty small), and a faster environment (a vax running UNIX
> is slow as molasses even with 1 user).  Granted the Mac was written in 
> PASCAL.
> 
> Apple shouldn't have to come out with a new faster Mac.  The only reason they
> do is because they didn't do it right (in assembler) the first time (when
> they used a high-level language).  Programmers should be paid to write
> the best programs possible (I do not believe in doing it slowly) if these
> programs are to become products.

It will doubtless be news to Apple that they - or rather Bill Atkinson, Andy
Hertzfeld and a few others - wrote the Mac Toolbox and Operating System in
Pascal.  They probably thought that they were writing in 68000 assembler all
that time ...

The real problem is disk io. Unfortunately there is no form of DMA in the Mac
except, of course, the screen.  The disk io channels themselves (sorry about
my terminology) are rather appalling in performance, and have been allegedly
speeded up by a factor of 8 in the new MacPlus.  On top of which the software
does no serious disk cacheing - in a recent discussion Andy Hertzfeld mentioned
that he uses a commercially available disk cacher.

Of course, the Mac is documented for Pascal programmers, and one presumes that
almost all applications programming will occur in languages at least as high-
level as C or Pascal.  In fact, object-oriented languages are likely to make
the biggest impact - C++, Clascal and the like.  Assuming that these marvelous
structured assemblers will have 5 times longer source code sizes than high-level
equivalents, I would like to see Mike Schwartz knock off 100,000 lines some
weekend for a moderate full-scale program.

Of course he will find it easier than his tricky little 100 liners - after all,
all you have to do is figure out which Toolbox call to make, push the parameters
onto the stack in the right order, then do an inline trap.  Over and over again.

The optimisations that Schwartz mentions - that there is no need to code 95% +
of procedures as recursive and so on - could of course be implemented by a
good code generator in a good compiler.

FLAME ON
1. Get your facts straight before foaming at the mouth.

2. Bet you can't write 100,000 lines of code AND hand-optimise all of it
   AND get it all to work.  Never heard of critical code?

FLAME OFF

I will doubtless be assassinated one of these dark nights....


Wrolf Courtney       philabs!sbcs!goedel!wrolf
CS Dept.  SUNY at Stony Brook. NY