> Paul Raulerson wrote: I think it can be argued that the
> c library provides a complete, and easily extended or
> modified equivalent of HLASM macro processing.
Sorry but I've shown time and again this is not possible for C. In a previous
post, I showed XML parse use in pseudo C logic and in an assembler program. The
C program is not programmer friendly for these types of situations.
> Paul Raulerson wrote: But the most probably truth is that C is
> far more efficient to program in than HLASM.For simple problems,
> unquestionably C is the choice (e.g. adding 1 to a variable).
For large complicated problems, assembler is the language of choice. E.g.
compare the implementation for I/O. Assembler allowed us to use a robust family
of I/O handling compared to Unix streams. Case in point is IBM C open( ) was
not close to assembler open with DCB. XML parser is another example. If you
believe it's possible, show us a small snippet that demonstrates it's possible.
> Paul Raulerson wrote: for (x=0; x< 100000000; x++) { c++; }
> and optimized it during compile time.
There are certainly features that would be nice in ASM but a good optimizing
language doesn't make up for a language that encourages good coding practices
(e.g. XML parse).
Jon.
