Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Assembly vs HLL debate Message-ID: <793@dg_rtp.UUCP> Date: Sat, 3-Jan-87 14:08:19 EST Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.793 Posted: Sat Jan 3 14:08:19 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Jan-87 21:50:53 EST References: <1250@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> Lines: 21 > billw@navajo.STANFORD.EDU (William E. Westfield) > People have repsonded to my message (compilers use expenisve function > calls, etc) by saying "gee, use a good compiler, it will code functions > inline and optimize calling sequences as well as an assembly > programmer". I say Hah! Does anyone know of even one example of such > a compiler? In line functions ought to be pretty machine independent, > and since one of the claimed virtues of HLLs is transportability, > please specify a compiler (or set of compatable compilers) that runs on > several different machines, say 8086, 68000, and Vax... So, specify an assembler that does so. Saying that "Your HLL example must be transportable, while my assembly examples need not be" is quite a double-standard. -- If you must compare apples and oranges, do not use redness and smoothness as your criteria... unless, of course, you are trying to mislead. --- Padlipsky -- Wayne Throop!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw