Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!claris!apple!dan
From: dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Knowing Machine Code
Message-ID: <11093@apple.Apple.Com>
Date: 27 May 88 01:39:51 GMT
References: <1911@rayssdb.ray.com> <2586@polyslo.UUCP> <321@piring.cwi.nl> <2729@polyslo.UUCP> <6010@well.UUCP> <10893@apple.Apple.Com> <2823@polyslo.UUCP>
Reply-To: dan@apple.UUCP (Dan Allen)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 23

In article <10893@apple.Apple.Com> dan@apple.UUCP (Dan Allen) writes:
>After all, everyone should understand the native language that their
>machine speaks....
 
I wrote this because I feel strongly that high performance applications
need to use assembly language now and again.  I wrote this because
compilers (even the best) make mistakes that are sometimes VERY hard to
find unless you look at--not the source code--but the object code that
was generated.  I wrote this statement NOT because I feel that every
application should be written entirely in assembly, but because every
application perhaps should be written in about 5% assembly.  (Your
mileage may vary)

Look at apps like MacPaint and HyperCard: they use the 95% Pascal and 5%
Assembly formula, with good results.

Yes, yes, yes: high level languages are great, but in the end, IT ALL
COMES DOWN TO ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE.  My statement was to remind people that
knowing some assembly language is both helpful and essential in a good
computer scientist's toolkit of skills.

Dan Allen
Software Explorer
Apple Computer