🚀 go-pugleaf

	Have you seen an article in "Computer Language" magazine
of Oct. 86 about "Universal assembly language" ?

    This article claims that it is (always/usually) better to
use assembly language rather than HLL. (any). this is based on the 
following claims: 

    1. The ONLY siginificant advantage of HLL is a shorter CODING time.
    2. Design, documentation, testing time is (almost) the same in both cases.
    3. The assembly program will run 2-5 times faster.
    4. So, after enough runs of the program the coding time gap will be 
       swallowed. From then on, the assembly program gains non-stop.

   Seems to me that this does not hold water.
     
    1. No mention of changes/maintenance issues anywhere.
    2. I strongly question ALL of the above assumptions. 
    3. As one of the compiler writers for NS , If assembler programs
	, as a rule , ran 2 times faster than our compiler, 
	I would be greatly surprized and FIX THE COMPILER !
    
   The autor also suggests a "UNIVERSAL ASSEMBLER" to run on many machines.
I think FORTH already fits the bill, & has many other advantages.

			Any Comments,  netlanders ?

-- 
orr%nsta@nsc			 IBM's motto: Machines should work,
                                              People should think.
                                 Orr's remark: Neither do.
Disclaimer: Opinions, come home. All is forgiven. Papa.