erik quanstrom wrote:
1 and 3 are not really that different, so you're down to two examples.
C is OK for newer embedded systems (microcontrollers), older ones are
what they are and ASM may well be the way to go. But even there, ASM
is often just the lazy way rather than the more economical way.
perhaps you haven't programmed many microcontrollers. usually the
volumes are high and the per unit cost is very important so you end up
with very simple parts with very little ram/flash. the one i worked on
earlier this year had low speed usb interface, 2 gp registers, 256 bytes of ram
and 4k of flash.
i found it easy enough to program in assembly, but i don't think you'd
get very far with c. i just don't think you could fit things into memory.
Well 'C compiler hosted on a larger machine, and with that one as a binary
target' will no doubt come back from someone. And that isn't wrong.
But unless it has to be done over and over in may ways, such a setup can take
longer to set up, test, and option for a given run than to JFDI the app in
machine code.
Less than 5K bytes total fits on a page or two of A4 in hex, or one modern LCD
display.
How 'lost' can you get in a teacup?
And how many op codes will you actually need to use from what must be a rather
small set anyway?
Bill
I have a feeling brucee will point out that the gain in efficiency in
using ASM is insufficient to justify the additional costs in
complexity and error potential.
i don't understand the assumption that the only reason to use assembly is
cycle efficiency.
Actually it often has *less* of that efficiency than a highly optimizing 'C' (or
'D') compiler. Especially if the coder is not well and truly au fait with a
specific CISC machine's op codes, architecture, cycle 'cost'.
also, could you explain why this is "lazy"? or why assembly is more
complicated?
"Tedious" might be more accurate than "complicated".
;-)
clearly, an assembly is more difficult to wield than c. but you don't
use them for the same thing.
Some of us try hard not to use either of them at all....
this absolutist argument that c is teh bomb. asm suks is silly. it's like
arguing bicycles and ferraris. which one you need (and which one gets
you there faster) depends on what you're doing.
- erik
ACK. Hong Kongs 100+ year-old tram system beats the modern underground on cost,
the undergrond beats a taxi on speed at rush hour, but not otherwise, buses have
a wider route choice than either, and the taxi *always* rules on assuredly
getting a place to sit down. IF you can get the taxi in the first place - which
is NOT assured.
'puters are not so different.
Glad to have choices, and we can never stop making them without giving up
*something* of value.
Bill
