Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
From: rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell)
Subject: Re: Assembly Language & Programming
Message-ID: <1991Apr10.000254.24530@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization: The Internet
References: <colin_fox.3793@outbound.wimsey.bc.ca> <1991Apr9.204318.6798@starnet.uucp>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 00:02:54 GMT
Lines: 60

In article <1991Apr9.204318.6798@starnet.uucp> sschaem@starnet.uucp (Stephan Schaem) writes:
>
> Well I find the contrary.Structure are easyer to handle/anderstand in
> ASM. (That for me people).
> I have more than 500K of source on my curent project.Of course this is
> not comment striped:-)
> And still have 178K of structure definition.
> The above is for the main part of the game.Not including the 8 other
> parts and utilites (bigger than the game).
> It's not 1 guy work also... But doesn't make things easyer:-)
>
> We change structure ALL the time, no problem! the only problem come
> when we have commented a structure has the element cant change order...
> But never happen really:-) look at CBM structure, the same happen with
> Y,X...
>
> I would say that programing technics can make a diference! look at your
> code during the years...

  Yes, the programmer accounts for some of the responsibility in
maintaining structures, but doing it yourself in asm is still the
hard way of doing it. And if you consider C++ or other object oriented
languages with data abtraction, the problem goes almost entirely away.
With data abtraction, you can operate on structures and not
even know what's inside them! You can hide some details of the
structure, and change them without altering a single byte
in the rest of the program. With operator and function overloading
you can almost totally ignore data types. For instance, you can declare
a vector or matrix and add them as if there were normal numbers.
Even better, you can change the definition of a "vector" internally
and have the rest of the program work perfectly with the change.
Object Oriented, Functional, and Imperative languages all have their
place. You seem to suggest assembly is the only language for real
programmers which is ludicrous. I could go so far as to say
that only real programmers program in HEX or Binary. Or only real
programmers program by flipping switches on a TX-0 or key punching a card.

> I pretty mutch know that you can make C code unreadable! and even
> almost untoucable! (Not coded by a pro).
> The same can happne in ASM also, its still a language.
>
> I cant beleive people that know the 680x0 put it down for C?!? I would
> not need mutch to look like C... 

 I get the impression that assembly is the only language you know. 
Perhaps your sampling of various languages is limited, but there are
many RICH programming languages out there. Trying to use assembly for
every job is overkill. If assembler was the ultimate of all languages
then why do people keep inventing new languages? To make programming
easier. The vast majority of software in this world is developed in
HLLs. The type of niche programming you do would be better directed
at game controllers like nitendo , sega, etc. 



--
/~\_______________________________________________________________________/~\
|n|   rjc@albert.ai.mit.edu   Amiga, the computer for the creative mind.  |n|
|~|                                .-. .-.                                |~|
|_|________________________________| |_| |________________________________|_|
