Cheating is absolutely encouraged in programming :-) The context of my post was a discussion about "implementing algorithms", and my point is that in the real world there is not only more reusable "library" code in C but that it is easier to reuse, being a HLL.
The good news, is that with Metal-C you can mix-in C with assembler. Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Hall, Keven <[email protected]> wrote: > If the C Programmer is allowed to cheat by using a pre-existent and > debugged set of code (in lieu of creating it from scratch), so can the > Assembler Programmer. > > Interesting use of the verb "cheat" > > Keven Hall | [email protected] > Software Operative > Office: 512-795-6959 > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert A. > Rosenberg > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 15:12 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: ASM vs HLL (Was: CPU: ASSM vs ENTERPRISE COBOL - SOLVED!) > > At 17:21 -0500 on 04/07/11, Kirk Wolf wrote about Re: ASM vs HLL > (Was: CPU: ASSM vs ENTERPRISE COBOL - SOLVED: > >>Lets have a more real world discussion - >> >>Lets say that you have an HLASM and a C programmer of equal experience >>who are independently building the same system and they need a good >>balanced binary tree data structure. The C programmer could use one >>of several open source or public domain implementations written in C, >>compile it in Metal-C and be using well-tested, optimized code 15 >>minutes later. >> >>The assembler programmer grabs his Knuth book.... > > Or he digs into his tool box and pulls out a subroutine to do it (ie: > The equivalent of your OS/PD implementation). If the C Programmer is > allowed to cheat by using a pre-existent and debugged set of code (in > lieu of creating it from scratch), so can the Assembler Programmer. > Remember you say experienced with means that the Assembler Programmer > has code that can be reused/recycled. >
