Rogelio Serrano wrote:
On 5/5/07, Bruce Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i meant it.
asm is gone, or should have been many years ago.
explain a simple case when you need it.
seriously?
compiling c code. can you imagine a c compiler that does not translate
to asm first? or can you imagine porting a c compiler when you dont
have an assembler? do you want to be hand coding machine code in a
compiler's code generator?
All those have been done, and more than a few times.
But it doesn't make any of 'em 'optimal'. Nor easy.
i think assembler is a good compromise. its
good for compiler writers.
Cheaper and faster to create or update a few symbols for new silicon & added
features in asm than elsewhere.
or would you rather have the processor and hardware designers build in
the language support in the hardware? how would you react if the
hardware designers choice of language is different from yours?
That very thing was done with at least two fairly 'high level' (or high-level
capable) languages.. forth and pascal. There have been others.
The world did not exactly beat a commercial path to the door of any of these.
Too specialized, too limited in application. Too slow.
As an alternative to diode plug boards, wire-wrap tools, and solder, asm is the
most flexible yet of compromises, so not likely to go away until the 'puter
becomes self-aware and self-replicating.
Not necessarily a day to look forward to, that one...
'...you can *negotiate* with a terrorist..'
:-(
Bill
