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: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Craig Franck Subject: Re: Porting Experiences (was Ada and Pascal etc ) Date: 1997/11/11 Message-ID: <648asb$5dp@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 288444753 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <345BB35E.4488@dynamite.com.au> <63ftj9$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> <3467750E.4DE6@gsg.eds.com> Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-11-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote: >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. I meant the source code the programmer would produce using those two tools. (I was a bit ambiguous with my phrasing.) >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. Why, were they doing that in the 19th 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. I like MASM. >> 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. Then suggest a better macro assembler. Please, *do* enlighten. >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. Every one of those points you just made is false. >I'm willing to take your word for it the the >code you wrote in MASM is unmaintainable, I never said it was unmaintainable; it's very good code. The code I got from that Len Dorfman fellow and dozens of others is very good. >but that says nothing about >code written by others or about code written for other asemblers. Only a very small fraction of the code on my system was written by me. It would be helpful if you would post a small snippet (or e-mail me with more) of macro assembler source code that you feel is more maintainable than when coded in a HLL like C. [If your reading comp.lang.c you can drop the .ada and .c++ groups.] -- 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