Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ncar!tank!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Assembly or ....
Keywords: religious wars
Message-ID: <14798@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 2 Dec 88 01:46:02 GMT
References: <1388@aucs.UUCP> <295@avsd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 33

>In article <1388@aucs.UUCP> 861087p@aucs.UUCP (A N D R E A S) writes:
>>So why is everybody against assembly when many programs available are
>>written in assembly?

In article <295@avsd.UUCP> childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) writes:
>Because every time a new processor comes out, you need to go back to
>being a dummy again, and people get tired of it after a few times. Not
>everybody, but you're faced with a choice of either studying further
>and getting into board design and chip selection ... or saying the hell
>with it and going back up to C.

More or less.

The name of the game is *abstraction*: being able to get away from the
real details.  If I want something to go very fast, I should write it
in assembly.  No, not good enough, I should write it in microcode.  No,
make it faster; do it in array logic.  Still not fast enough?  Design a
nanomachine:  Make every molecule count!

I would really rather not write a news system in nanomachine molecules,
or even in microcode.  It is much easier to write it in shell scripts.
It might be too slow; eventually, I will decide on an acceptable
compromise.  C provides the lowest-level abstraction available to me
that nonetheless remains reasonably portable, so I will probably settle
on C.

A good design begins with the right level of abstraction.  Very few
program designs really demand assembly level abstractions any more,
just as not as many PC board designs demand individual transistor-level
logic.  PLAs are cheaper, and are fast enough.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris