🚀 go-pugleaf

> No apologies are due to the compiler writers.  Rather, criticism is due to
> them for the arrogance they took in leaving out the possibility for the
> programmmer to do something intelligent.  The HLLs are woefully inadequate,
> and I would not be surprised that the ability to do intelligent coding using
> the machine capabilities may be destroyed by learning such restrictive coding
> procedures first.

Well, excuuuuse me!

(sarcasm on) Herman, hopefully no one ever forced you to do your coding in
HLL's. You sound to me like someone whose code I'd *hate* to have to
maintain. If you dislike HLL's so much, why the *(*&@#) don't you go back
and start coding in assembler? Oh, you want to *port* your application to
another machine?  Naaah, no one would possibly want to waste their precious
time doing that ****ty porting stuff. Anyway, if a machine doesn't have
MOVC3 and CALLG, it must be horse####. (sarcasm off)

There's a reason for HLL's not supporting your favorite all-singing,
all-dancing instruction at the source level, and that is that not every
machine has that instruction in that form. Got it????
----
Shankar.