🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr16.004355.22971@redsox.bsw.com>, campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
|> Why is it (he wonders out loud) that the only machines on which people still
|> (in this day and age) seem to use assembly language are IBM 360s?
|> 
|> I can't remember who said this, but it's apropos:  "Programming in assembly
|> language is like digging postholes with a teaspoon.  Sure, it takes longer,
|> but you have complete control over every spoon of dirt."
|> 
|> Is it just because IBM doesn't ship any decent compilers?  I mean, what
|> am I missing?  Why do people put up with this stuff?
|> -- 
|> Larry Campbell             The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street
|> campbell@redsox.bsw.com    Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA)

Well, gee, Larry.   I guess the articles I've seen in Computer Language,
etc., for Assembler on PCs must be written by mainframe types
(and, of course, Connection Machine PARIS, which is, for all intents and 
most purposes, its Assembler, is not called Assembler, so it doesn't count).

One might as well ask why people use low-level compiled languages
(like FORTRAN or C) when there are so many higher level languages
around (APL2, REXX).

IBM's compilers are perfectly decent, though sometimes conservative.
The problem is that there are times when Assembler is the best choice:

	1)	Efficiency and control of data structures. 

	2)	Coding of user exits.

	3) 	Use of machine instructions and special features
		which still haven't made it into the high-level interfaces, 
		or which may be difficult to describe in terms of
		high-level approaches.

	4)	Some of us can code (and debug) in Assembler at
		speeds greater than others (or we) can code in
		higher-level languages.

These are just off the top of my head.
	
We try to choose the most appropriate tools for the job.

Dave.