I am no expert but are there not "better" (FSVO better, of course) macro languages, either for C, or generic in their capabilities?
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 7:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM 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.
