Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re:   Computer Architecture question -- Daye Haynie
Message-ID: <1991May19.123429.19440@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
References: <mykes.2456@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> <1991May15.112823.22229@sugar.hackercorp.com> <mykes.2708@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 12:34:29 GMT

Mike "Assembly forever" Schwartz wrote:
> I'd bet the farm that ALL of Newtek's software (toaster, digipaint, digiview)
> are done in 100% assembly (and it shows :)

I point out the trout in the milk:
> Sure does. I can't run DigiPaint on my Amiga 3000.

So, Mike responds:
> I can't run a lot of 'C' applications I bought on my A2500 either, what does
> that prove?

Doesn't prove anything, but it's persuasive circumstantial evidence.

It's possible to write bad software in any language.

It's just easier in some.

It's easier to screw up in assembly than C, in C than a B&D language like
Pascal, in Pascal than C++, in C++ than SmallTalk, in SmallTalk than really
high level database/dataflow languages like the UNIX shell, and so on...

ALWAYS use the highest level language available that can get the job done.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
<peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
