Xref: utzoo comp.arch:5913 comp.lang.misc:1746
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: I hate COMPASS (was: using (ugh!  yetch!) assembler)
Message-ID: <1153@garth.UUCP>
Date: 4 Aug 88 21:27:02 GMT
References: <856@l.cc.purdue.edu> <35@taux02.UUCP>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 18

>Code written in COMPASS *looks* like HLL, but underneath it's still ugly
>machine code, inefficient and impossible to debug. The more features of
>COMPASS the programmer uses, the less s/he is aware of what code is
>really generated 'down there' and is fooled into believing that it's as
>good as code generated by a HLL.

Just use    LIST G,A    and you'll see what's there.
 
>In addition to types, records, type checking etc., high and medium level
>languages have one other big advantage over macro assemblers: standards.
>C cannot do everything, but at least it's (almost) the same language

If you're referring to a standard definition, C doesn't have one. If ANSI
every gets around to doing it, many compilers will be nonconforming.

If you're referring to a project coding standards, no language is going
to force a standard coding style for all projects unless your language
has been designed by Wirth.