Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!rutgers!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!nsc!nsta!instable!orr
From: orr@instable.UUCP (Orr Michael )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: assembly programming prefereable to HLL programming ?
Message-ID: <646@instable.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Dec-86 09:28:52 EST
Article-I.D.: instable.646
Posted: Wed Dec  3 09:28:52 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Dec-86 22:04:05 EST
Organization: National Semiconductor (Israel) Ltd.
Lines: 32
Keywords: programming language comparison


	Have you seen an article in "Computer Language" magazine
of Oct. 86 about "Universal assembly language" ?

    This article claims that it is (always/usually) better to
use assembly language rather than HLL. (any). this is based on the 
following claims: 

    1. The ONLY siginificant advantage of HLL is a shorter CODING time.
    2. Design, documentation, testing time is (almost) the same in both cases.
    3. The assembly program will run 2-5 times faster.
    4. So, after enough runs of the program the coding time gap will be 
       swallowed. From then on, the assembly program gains non-stop.

   Seems to me that this does not hold water.
     
    1. No mention of changes/maintenance issues anywhere.
    2. I strongly question ALL of the above assumptions. 
    3. As one of the compiler writers for NS , If assembler programs
	, as a rule , ran 2 times faster than our compiler, 
	I would be greatly surprized and FIX THE COMPILER !
    
   The autor also suggests a "UNIVERSAL ASSEMBLER" to run on many machines.
I think FORTH already fits the bill, & has many other advantages.

			Any Comments,  netlanders ?

-- 
orr%nsta@nsc			 IBM's motto: Machines should work,
                                              People should think.
                                 Orr's remark: Neither do.
Disclaimer: Opinions, come home. All is forgiven. Papa.