Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!pyrnj!mirror!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.UUCP (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: assembly programming prefereable to HLL programming ?
Message-ID: <183@haddock.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Dec-86 18:47:23 EST
Article-I.D.: haddock.183
Posted: Thu Dec  4 18:47:23 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Dec-86 06:05:30 EST
References: <646@instable.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ISC.COM.UUCP (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 21
Keywords: programming language comparison

In article <646@instable.UUCP> orr@instable.UUCP (Orr Michael ) writes:
>    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 !

Careful coding in assembler can indeed result in a doubling of speed (but
not uniformly).  There are some things that current compilers just don't
know how to optimize, or can't because of lack of information.  E.g., one
hand-optimization I recently did on a VAX was to convert a recursive routine
from standard form (CALLS instruction, args starting at 4(AP)) to a BSBB with
args in scratch registers and a brief CALLS-callable prolog.  I'd be quite
impressed with a mechanical optimizer that could match what I did.

>   The autor also suggests a "UNIVERSAL ASSEMBLER" to run on many machines.
>I think FORTH already fits the bill, & has many other advantages.

I suspect it's much easier to write a portable program in C than in FORTH.
Doesn't FORTH assume that integers and all flavors of pointer are identical?
(Many older C programs do too, but I think FORTH depends on it.)

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint