Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!hsi!wright From: wright@hsi.UUCP (Gary Wright) Newsgroups: comp.sw.components Subject: Re: Re: Garbage Collection & ADTs Message-ID: <614@hsi86.hsi.UUCP> Date: 28 Sep 89 13:03:52 GMT References: <599@hsi86.hsi.UUCP> <8309@goofy.megatest.UUCP> Reply-To: wright@hsi.com (Gary Wright) Organization: Health Systems Intl., New Haven, CT. Lines: 30 In article <8309@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >From article <599@hsi86.hsi.UUCP>, by wright@hsi.UUCP (Gary Wright): >.. >> >> Well, I have *never* encountered a situation that absolutely demanded using >> a high level language. That is why I still do all my programming in >> assembly. :-) >> > >Sorry, but I'm too tired of this assembler-hll analogy for a smiley to save >you. Grumble. Ggrrrrrrrrrrrrmpf. Okay, okay, here: :-) (Sort of.) > But you missed the point. It doesn't matter what specific analogy is used. I was trying to point out the logical flaw in the argument. The point is that just because you have never used a technique, or have never found a situation for which the techniques was not sufficient doesn't mean that another technique could be used or might even make your job easier. [comments regarding powerful macro assemblers ommitted. GRW] > Those macro packages were the evolutionary antecedants of HLLs. So you were using new techniques to make your job easier at *perhaps* a loss in generality and raw performance. That is the analogy I was trying to make. -- Gary Wright ...!uunet!hsi!wright Health Systems International wright@hsi.com