Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcnc!unc!rentsch From: rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: HLL vs. assembler Message-ID: <498@unc.unc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 4-Jan-87 20:29:37 EST Article-I.D.: unc.498 Posted: Sun Jan 4 20:29:37 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 4-Jan-87 23:35:23 EST References: <486@l.cc.purdue.edu> Reply-To: rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) Distribution: world Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill Lines: 39 In article <486@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > It is correct that most subroutine calls do a lot, and that subroutine > salling is "absolutely" faster than it was many years ago. However, > it is relatively far slower. Also, much of the time I do not want all > of the junk that a subroutine call produces. The poster intends this as an argument in favor of assembly, as opposed to HLL's. Notice, however, that the observation (even if true) argues *against* assembly and in favor of HLL's. Reason: in assembly a call is a call, whereas in an HLL what is written as a procedure *need not* be compiled into a closed subroutine. In assembly, if you write CALLS (or whatever your favorite machines call instruction is), you get CALLS; in an HLL, if you write PROCEDURE (or whatever your favorite HLL's subroutine declaration keyword is), you *might or might not* get something called with a subroutine call instruction, on *any* machine. Upon reflection, I realized that the poster is arguing not against HLL's but against the practices of structured programming. I won't argue the virtues of structured programming here (although I happen to believe in them), but it seems worth pointing out that non-structured code (i.e., with no subroutine calls) can just as well be written in an HLL as in assembly language. This is not an argument against HLL's, even if (as the quoted poster seems to) you believe in non-structured code. If you DO believe in structured code, then the observation is in favor of HLL's (as the "reason" paragraph explains). Final point: "It is relatively far slower."?! Could you supply some facts which support this opinion? cheers, txr