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