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