Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!hpclscu!shankar
From: shankar@hpclscu.HP.COM (Shankar Unni)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Things compilers never need ( was Re: Bandwidth and RISC vs. CISC )
Message-ID: <650011@hpclscu.HP.COM>
Date: 27 Apr 89 21:07:46 GMT
References: <4641@uklirb.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Calif. Language Lab
Lines: 22

> No apologies are due to the compiler writers.  Rather, criticism is due to
> them for the arrogance they took in leaving out the possibility for the
> programmmer to do something intelligent.  The HLLs are woefully inadequate,
> and I would not be surprised that the ability to do intelligent coding using
> the machine capabilities may be destroyed by learning such restrictive coding
> procedures first.

Well, excuuuuse me!

(sarcasm on) Herman, hopefully no one ever forced you to do your coding in
HLL's. You sound to me like someone whose code I'd *hate* to have to
maintain. If you dislike HLL's so much, why the *(*&@#) don't you go back
and start coding in assembler? Oh, you want to *port* your application to
another machine?  Naaah, no one would possibly want to waste their precious
time doing that ****ty porting stuff. Anyway, if a machine doesn't have
MOVC3 and CALLG, it must be horse####. (sarcasm off)

There's a reason for HLL's not supporting your favorite all-singing,
all-dancing instruction at the source level, and that is that not every
machine has that instruction in that form. Got it????
----
Shankar.