Re: [OT] Gibson's vision of computer languajes

[Dave Poirier <instinc@users.sf.net>]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> "Dave Poirier" <instinc@users.sf.net> wrote in message
> news:3C8503D9.30209@users.sf.net...
> 
>>In my opinion, Assembly is the best suited language for any project, but
>>our society is unfortunately based on money, and to be commercially
>>viable assembly must of then be traded for less human-time consuming
>>alternatives.
>>
>>
> 
> Why do you think assembly language is the best suited language for any
> project? Most people would contend that assembly is occasionally necessary
> to accomplish things that can't be done (easily) in a high level language,
> but that it is to be avoided because of its developmental inefficiency, high
> probability of injecting errors and difficulty of maintenance. I'm curious
> as to what reasons you'd give to go against the conventional wisdom.
> 
> High level languages of almost any stripe generally mean you get the job
> done faster/better/cheaper & that's a good thing. What advantage do you get
> from assembler other than the occasional need to dip into it for some
> specific task not easily done otherwise - or the pure asthetic pleasure of
> doing something one might find interesting? (Liking a language is one thing.
> I like Ada for various asthetic reasons. Giving sound engineering reasons
> for using a particular language is another. Most of us here could give such
> reasons for using Ada in a given domain. What's the argument for favoring
> assembler?)

I think there is really only one thing that could explain why I value 
more assembler than other languages, it's that I probably value more the 
  time the machine spend executing the code than the time the human 
spend writing the code.

Lately I started considering myself more of an artist than a programmer, 
which is probably why I see the beauty in pure binary and take pleasure 
in counting cpu cycles and bytes of memory used.  For me, a program is 
"good" if it does the job without failing, a program is "nice" if it 
does the job fast and still does it "good", and a program is "awesome" 
if it's using one of the best sequence of instructions possible and fits 
in tight places while achieving the set goal.

I'm happy when I get a program done in HLL, but I'm not satisfied.  I'm 
happy and satisfied if I get a program done in assembly and I know it's 
the smallest/fastest thing I could create.

I just keep seeing all we could do with those computers we had in the 
'80s and read about what was done in the '60s and '70s (I wasn't there 
back then), and I find it amazing at the amount of work that could be 
done on those slow beasts.  Now we seem to have each a supercomputer 
sitting on our desk and we seem to be barely able to edit a text document.

Sure, the document is now fitting in a page, that we actually "see" as 
it will be printed, and some other stuff, but when I come to think about 
what the cpu actually execute, I just see billion of wasted cycles. 
Instead of improving programs, ppl buy bigger computers.

sorry for rambling on, hope I didn't confuse anybody (sorry for my 
english also).

EKS - Dave Poirier