Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb From: rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Randy Buckland) Newsgroups: net.lang.pascal,net.lang.c Subject: Re: optimizing compilers vs. optimizing programmers Message-ID: <69@rti-sel.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 21:54:38 EST Article-I.D.: rti-sel.69 Posted: Wed Jan 16 21:54:38 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 00:39:07 EST References: <285@harvard.ARPA> Distribution: net Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC Lines: 20 Xref: watmath net.lang.pascal:200 net.lang.c:3930 > To those that argue that Bliss is no better than assembly language let > me say that tests done by DEC indicate that the Bliss-32 compiler > produces code better than that written by experienced assembly language > programmers. HAH!!!!!!!! For the bare language, I might agree. However, any macro programmer worth the name after a year or so will have developed a set of macros that enable high level constructs but still allow precise control of the machine. I personally have a set of macros that give me more high level capabilities that C does. My assembler programs are more readable and easier to modify than any bliss program that I have ever seen. Maybe the compiler uses an odd instruction that takes 3 nanoseconds less than the one I used. Mine is usually more logical and easier to understand. Randy Buckland Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb