Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!unc!rentsch From: rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: assembly programming prefereable to HLL programming ? Message-ID: <386@unc.unc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 10-Dec-86 01:57:33 EST Article-I.D.: unc.386 Posted: Wed Dec 10 01:57:33 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Dec-86 20:48:16 EST References: <646@instable.UUCP> <476@atari.UUcp> <8@blipyramid.BLI.COM> <7633@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Reply-To: rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill Lines: 27 From previous article.... > I think the key to being able to conveniently write assembly code lies > in a really bitching macro facility, with the general approach being > 'define whatever wierd constructs using the macro expander, but, > because YOU are supplying the underlying code, you can make it as > efficient as you want'. Now, the program is not necessarily > non-portable, just the macro code. Since most of the macro routines > are not too complex when singled out, it's easier to rewrite. Gee, along with that macro facility, wouldn't it be nice to have a facility for automatically passing parameters to a routine? And maybe some simple data-structuring macros? Maybe a flexible macro-call syntax which allows expressions to generate code? And how about some macros to do IF's and WHILE's? Maybe some routine calling macros, and some simple checks on argument validity? Before laughing too hard, ask an assembly language programmer with "a really bitching macro facility" if he has ever wanted those things, or if he has tried to implement any himself. Then tell me (with a straight face) that the result is significantly different from a HLL. "Can you say 'BALR'? Horrors!" cheers, txr