Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mandrill!gatech!ncar!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!nsc!voder!apple!dan
From: dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Knowing Machine Code
Message-ID: <11795@Apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 8 Jun 88 15:35:58 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> <11093@apple.Apple.Com> <13735@comp.vuw.ac.nz>
Reply-To: dan@Apple.COM.UUCP (Dan Allen)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 27

In article <13735@comp.vuw.ac.nz> newbery@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Newbery) writes:
>Please be careful of sweeping statements. Granted the 68000 is not the easiest
>machine to compile code for and assembler is nearly always needed somewhere
>in practice:
>1) I would still rather see compilers improved to where they DID make assembler
>   redundant
>2) Not all architectures require an assembler. There is no assembler on the
>   Burroughs (now Unisys) Large Systems. None. Never was. Ever. Not necessary.
>   All programming was done in Algol (or dialects.)
>
>Life is too short to spend it writing assembler.

Perhaps your life is too short, but I choose to spend some of mine (not
a lot, but some) writing assembly.  (A person does not write assembler.
An assembler is the tool, assembly is the language.  We do not say, for
example, "Life is too short to spend it writing compiler".)

I write most of my Macintosh apps in Pascal, my MPW Tools in C, and my
debuggers, INITs, and other small stuff in Assembly.  I stand by my
original statement that knowledge of a machine's native assembly
language and architecture is very important to writing a good piece of
code for that machine.  Or at least a fast and successful piece of code.
(Perhaps the use of the word good implies too much of a moral
decision-)!

Dan Allen
Apple Computer