Re: Disobeying jet engines - why?

In message <06c03999-6db8-4676-9c8e-f227368193bb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Didi <diditgi@xxxxxxxxx> writes
eh, using C, with the modern compilers highly optimising,
they 'know' the processor', may actually improve performance, and reduce
chances of errors that could have occurred by misunderstanding some CPU features
by an asm programmer.

This is getting ever more true. Keeping the ALU pipeline stall rules satisfied is a challenging problem for the guys doing optimising compilers for a range of target CPUs (even ones in the same nominal family).

It may, if the programmer is not up to the task. Calling some library
functions
using some C hyeroglyphs is a lot less demanding than writing code,
this
is obvious.

If you are developing algorithms the last thing you need is to be hampered by the opaqueness of the representation. You might as well argue that real men should just use hex and memorise all the opcodes too.

The reason that FORTRAN was so spectacularly successful was that it made complex scientific computation accessible to anyone who could read and write algebra rather than just for a handful of white coated acolytes of the big iron god.

the C language is crippling the programmers, too much of their mind is
occupied
with the hoops they have to jump through in order to produce what they
need.

I find it odd here that I am jumping to the defence of C when I usually am on the other side of the argument. But there can be no denying that C is way more productive for software development than assembler.

And that strongly typed languages can prevent a fair proportion of the human error that inevitably creeps into software development. The more faults you can find by static analysis the better for all concerned.

Using a lower level language allows one to just type in a few lines
more
and be done with it, typically at a 10+ times better code efficiency

Yeah right. I am reminded of the Klingon programmer page:

http://www.sjbaker.org/humor/klingon_programmer.html

(and
at a similar coding efficiency, I would claim for myself).
I have numerous things written, we can do a comparison of equivalent
pieces
of code if you do not just take my word :-).

OK. Lets see you write a Quine in the assembly language of your choice.

I chose my language carefully. It took me 1 line and a minutes typing.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.