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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2353cc2ebdf8fc4a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-05 09:24:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!news1.tor.metronet.ca!nnrp1.tor.metronet.ca!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3C84FF36.9090209@home.com> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [OT] Gibson's vision of computer languajes References: <3C84057E.8020504@users.sf.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:24:08 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.47.195 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 10:24:08 MDT Organization: MetroNet Communications Group Inc. Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20812 Date: 2002-03-05T17:24:08+00:00 List-Id: Dave Poirier wrote: > Jano wrote: >> I'm pretty sure many of us know Steven Gibson. Today I've tested a >> freeware from him. In the instructions page he made these statements: >> >> "All of my programs are so small and so fast because I write only in >> the one, true, computer language: Assembly Language. All other >> languages reduce to assembly language, but they lose a lot in the >> translation. (Judge for yourself.)" >> >> "People who can't program in assembly language (just about everyone) >> get really annoyed with me when I talk about how much better it is >> than their pet language. But it's not my fault if they just say they >> care about quality." >> >> My blood is boiling. I want only to share to cool me a little down. > > Well, I'm an assembly freak, and I must say that I pretty much agree > with him . While assembly does create software that are small and > fast, and can be made as reliable as any other programming language > (using proper development techniques), portability can be applied at > best by rewriting the entire thing using a generic algorithm. ... > EKS - Dave Poirier There is nothing wrong with "liking assembler", but you're foolish to believe that assembler programs "can be made as reliable as any other programming language". Having used operating systems written in assembly language (anyone remember Honeywell's GCOS8/DPS8?), you would not want to go back there! Using those systems I learned very quickly to save my edit session every few minutes (if not seconds), because it was not unusual for the system to crash between 1-5 times a day. There were always new oodles of assembler patches being issued to correct prior patches and on and on it went. MULTICS and UNIX were a big advance in reliability because they went AWAY from assembly language. Now it is a good time to move away from C to Ada for operating systems (note that BSD and Linux are still written in C, not C++). The argument you make is the exact same argument that C/C++ programmers make WRT Ada. They always state "using proper development techniques", but the underlying problem is that this is subject to human error and is not reliably done. It kinda reminds one of the saying "the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions". -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg