From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Subject: Re: Porting Experiences (was Ada and Pascal etc ) Date: 1997/11/10 Message-ID: <3467750E.4DE6@gsg.eds.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 288417924 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <345BB35E.4488@dynamite.com.au> <63ftj9$r9g@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <345E3ACD.A15@gsg.eds.com> <63mcmm$r3s$1@helios.crest.nt.com> <345F95D0.3984@gsg.eds.com> <63omr0$put@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <34610614.33AC@gsg.eds.com> <63tq2h$b6o@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <346382BD.25F8@gsg.eds.com> <640ena$1q8@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net> Organization: EDS MS Reply-To: nospam@gsg.eds.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-11-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Craig Franck wrote: > What evidence do you want? Saying a modern assembler with a decent > macro processor is likely to produce code that is more maintainable > than C is simply false. ROTF,LMAO. It's the code produced by the programmer that is at issue, not what is generated by the compiler. If you are in the habbit of changing the output of your compiler in order to "save recompilation" time, then it is past time for you to move into the 20th century. > If someone came to me and said they wanted > to do a project in Microsoft's latest incarnation of MASM, rather > than C, because that would make the project more maintainable, I > would question their competence. [Not wanting to put words in your > mouth: you may replace MASM with any other macro assembler.] If the only macro assembler that you know is MASM, then I question your competence to address the issue. > Show me a macro assembler that's more maintainable than C. (I > currently have MASM 6.1 and several hundred megabytes of C and > asm code on my system that proves you wrong.) It proves nothing but the limitations of your background. It's not so much that C and MASM is all you know, it's that you don't understand that not all assemblers are the same and that not all programs in the same language are the same. I'm willing to take your word for it the the code you wrote in MASM is unmaintainable, but that says nothing about code written by others or about code written for other asemblers. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Senior Software SE The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers: reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com, user smetz. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org