Paul Gilmartin's recent post---I entirely agree with its substance---has
suggested to me yet again that we must take care to distinguish
o the HLASM proper, its quality and the quality of its documentation, from
o those of other operating-system facilities that are implemented in assembly
language.
The HLASM is, of course, imperfect; but it is the best, indeed the only vehicle
we have for implementing performance-critical routines and accessing many
system resources.
Moreover, compared to other assemblers, which often seem to have been
implemented in a fashion deliberately intended to discourage their significant
use, it is a marvel.
Legitimate and important criticisms of facilities implemented in assembly
language are too easily diverted into---or systematically misunderstood to
be---criticisms of the assembler proper. This distinction therefore needs to
be made systematically in posts here and on IBM-MAIN.
John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA
