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: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Subject: Re: Porting Experiences (was Ada and Pascal etc ) Date: 1997/11/12 Message-ID: <346A5D44.CB6@gsg.eds.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 289144843 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> <3467828E.1059@gsg.eds.com> Organization: EDS MS Reply-To: nospam@gsg.eds.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-11-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Dennis Weldy wrote: > > He pretty much disappeared. No idea if anything happened. Thanks. > IMO, in the general case, the code produced with an HLL will be a bit more > maintaibale and easier to understand than equivalent Assembly. That said, > it's lso possible to write obscure, unmaintainable code in any language. Don't I know it! My language of choice is PL/I, but I've seen some PL/I code that shouldn't happen to a dog. And yes, it takes a little bit more thought to write maintainable assembler code. > Straight Assembly will typically have one too busy looking at individual > pieces of bark, let alone being able to see a tree (or forest). That's not > to say that its not possible:-) Well, my assembler code makes heavy use of macros; I go for maintainablity and readability, even at the price of speed. > Further, if one is using assembly to get max speed, you'll use the > associated tools to do so. Using a "nonobvious" instruction sequence to > avoid pileline stalls, AGI locks, what have you. IMHO anyone who uses nonobvious instruction sequences is obligated to comment them adequately, even if that means writing a page or two of comments for a single instruction. Remeber that "hacker" derives form "hack", as in "He doesn't play chess, he just hacks at it." I have nothing but contempt for the idea that deliberately obscure code is a good thing in a production program. If you do something subtle, document it! > At the HLL level, one usually doesn't have that. And y'can usually see > things at a bit higher level. I've seen the same sort of code in HLL, and I have the same attitude for them: the programmer is obligated to do whatever it takes to make the code understandable. > A bt easier to see whats going on as the amount of information per line of > code is typically higher. Well, you said "typically", and I won't argue with that. I know a number of languages, and mix and match depending on what is available and on the nature of the application. Typically I only use assembler for things that are awkward in other languages. One common example is generation of initial values. The macro facilities of HLA and PL/I make those languages much better for generating complicated data structures than the available alternatives. -- 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