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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no 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: 2002-03-06 16:54:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!btnet-peer0!btnet!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [OT] Gibson's vision of computer languajes Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:27:50 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3C84057E.8020504@users.sf.net> <3C8503D9.30209@users.sf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1015424871 25800 136.170.200.133 (6 Mar 2002 14:27:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Mar 2002 14:27:51 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20878 Date: 2002-03-06T14:27:51+00:00 List-Id: "David Starner" wrote in message news:a63js4$9qe1@news.cis.okstate.edu... > > "Best suited language" implies that running speed is the goal. It's > frequently not, and sometimes where it is, assembly just isn't going to > make enough difference. I have a couple programs that need to be sped > up. 3 orders of magnitude should get them fast enough that I can > actually get results sometime. I may be able to make one faster - but > only if I can reason about it easily, which assembly doesn't help. The > primary goal for a lot of scientists is getting a correct answer in a > reasonable amount of time, with minimal programming knowledge. > Assembly's not the tool for that job, either. > Many compilers are capable of producing code that is as tight - or nearly as tight - as a skilled assembly programmer could do. (Given the same semantic requirements, of course. No fair requiring runtime checks of the compiler and not from the assembly expert...) And while with one given small segment of code, the assembly programmer might just be able to beat the compiler, I have faith that the compiler will do a consistently better job across the whole body of code more often than the programmer. So if speed is the only advantage, I'd contend that for reasonably large programs, you won't find any significant improvements to doing the whole thing in assembler versus doing it in a high level language. Clearly, one might hand-optimize the small percentage of the code doing the really hard work & buy an improvement, but it isn't going to change things much to do the whole job in assembler. Machines work consistently better at producing high quality stuff than do humans. A skilled human with a file and a raw chunk of steel might produce a really fine automobile engine one day. But stamping them out with CNC machinery is likely to produce a lot more of them at a consistently higher quality. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/