Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.works
Subject: Re: Fie on assembly language?
Message-ID: <425@terak.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Mar-85 17:56:59 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.425
Posted: Tue Mar  5 17:56:59 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 06:25:03 EST
References: <792@topaz.ARPA> <836@ames.UUCP>
Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 20

> the person at hughes [radar systems] was sad to mention
> large portions of their work in still in assembly language due to management
> familiarity and pressure.  they were just now moving projects into jovial
> because young people were taking jobs.

Gee, I wouldn't be sad at all to have assembly language programs.  I
consider high-level language programs to be a major compromise, but
one that is often needed because of cost & programming time tradeoffs.

High level languages have their place.  So do assembly languages.  We
are making a mistake if we feel that "C" or "Pascal" or "FORTRAN" or
"COBOL" or "SNOBOL" or "Jovial" or "assembly" is *THE* language in
which *all* programs should be coded.
 
But as a general rule, the reason for *not* using assembly language is
because of the initial programming costs.  Once the program has already
been written and those costs incurred, assembly is almost always
superior to higher-level languages.
-- 
Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug