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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID 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: Craig Franck Subject: Re: Porting Experiences (was Ada and Pascal etc ) Date: 1997/11/08 Message-ID: <640ena$1q8@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 287783232 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <345BB35E.4488@dynamite.com.au> <63ftj9$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> Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-11-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote: >Craig Franck wrote: >> >> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote: >> >Craig Franck wrote: >> >> >Second, if you are using a modern >> >assembler with a decent macro processor, the assembler code is likely to >> >be more maintainable than C code as well >> >> That's silly. (You been hanging out with SN?) > >It's not silly, it's true. "Saying "that's silly" instead of presenting >your ervidence, if any, is what's silly. 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. 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.] >And I have no idea who SN is. Scott Nudds (aka assembly boy, and a lot worse) of PASM fame. >> >(yes, I know that it won't be >> >as tight as hand coded one-for-one, but that doesn't bother me.) >> >> By the time you have a macro assembler as maintainable as C, you >> would have implemented a compiler. At which point using it would >> be silly, because C is more portable. > >Trying to pur words in my mouth is what's silly here; I never claimed >that the assembler code was portable, just more maintainable. 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.) -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once. -- Ashleigh Brilliant