Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpcuhc!hpsemc!gph
From: gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: High- vs. low-level languages (Was: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on)
Message-ID: <8090024@hpsemc.HP.COM>
Date: 19 May 89 17:48:19 GMT
References: <664@tukki.jyu.fi>
Organization: HP Technology Access Center, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 24

I think the original point of this posting was someone trying to put forward 
the rediculous idea that you should use assembler instead of a high level
language?

   Sort of like using a spoon to cultivate a cornfield.

   Look.   Code size reductions are becoming less and less important anywhere
   on computers.

   99% of all computer code is not performance bottlenecked.   If you decide
   to use assembler for all your coding becuase it is faster, it's like buying
   a Farrari 308 GTS so that you can get your speed up to 120 MPH between 
   stoplights on the El Camino Real.  You just aren't going to get where you
   are going ANY faster.

   Use a high level language and write good, straightforward code, and don't
   worry so much about performance.    

   Then, analyze the code at run-time, and figure out where the bottle necks
   are.   You can then really leverage a small amount of time re-coding those
   bottle necks in assembler, if necessary.  
 
   Does it make sense to code a routine in assembler so that it runs blindingly
   fast, if all it does is block on a terminal I/O  operation?