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