On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Jon Perryman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Jon Perryman wrote: > >> For large complicated problems, assembler is the language of choice. > > Martin Ward wrote: > > For large complicated problems a domain-specific language, > > targeted at the problem domain, is the language of choice. > > IBM assembler is the only language that I know which is easily tailored by > the programmer to be domain specific. C has functions to reduce > complication. C++ and other OOP languages have objects. Assembler can > easily do this thru macro's and it has other tools to greatly reduce > complexity. E.g. non-linear programming allows you to easily group source > code that assembles in multiple locations in the module. > What I am generally getting from all of this is that you like HLASM's __macro__ capability. Not that you necessarily think that (for lack of a better word) "raw" assembler is "better" than <insert language>. There are a number of DSLs written in Java. I am not knowledgeable enough about DSLs to have a real opinion. Hum, it would be stupid of me, but I sort of wonder if it would be "interesting" to write some HLASM macros which are designed to emit C code (via PUNCH). Kind of like Metal C's emitting of HLASM. > > > Martin Ward wrote: > > Does assembler encourage good coding practices? > > No, assembler does not. However, it gives you the tools create really good > coding practices and IBM has set a really good example thru their use of > macro's to reduce complexity. > > Regards, Jon. > -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. Maranatha! <>< John McKown
