Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.tech:252 comp.sys.amiga:17534 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!pnet01!haitex From: haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech,comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Assembly Source Level Collection (ASL) Message-ID: <2806@crash.cts.com> Date: 12 Apr 88 12:17:32 GMT Sender: news@crash.cts.com Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA Lines: 44 mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) writes: >In article <2524@umd5.umd.edu> spier@umd5.umd.edu (Lori Spier) writes: > >[I'm about to flame a bit. You may wish to skip from here on down.] > >I don't agree that it's as easy to write C as to write in an assembler >you know well. I've been writing 68K assembler since '84, and I still >can't write it as fast as I can write C (Ok, I'll admit I've been >writing C since '79). The main reason isn't that the assembler is >harder to deal with - that's true for some machines, but not the 68K - >it's that I have to write significantly more english around the code >to bring the level of readability of assembler up to what I get when I >write C. > Seems to me that you should: A) get a better assembler. As I understand it there are several. B) use macro's. A well constructed library of routines and macros should be almost as easy to use as C, and in alot of cases easier. Seems to me that what we all really need is an extensive, well written library of such routines and macros. Also, uncommented C (which is just about all I C :^) is not much more readable than assembler, and assembler programmers are *much* more likely to comment there code carefully for there own needs. (My macros comment themselves). If you want readablility, try Modula-2. Thanks, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM