Re: HLL vs. assembler

Thread View: comp.lang.misc

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by cik Thu, 01 Jan 1987 11:45

#4564

Author: cik
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1987 11:45

12 lines
1094 bytes

It is correct that most subroutine calls do a lot, and that subroutine
salling is "absolutely" faster than it was many years ago.  However,
it is relatively far slower.  Also, much of the time I do not want all
of the junk that a subroutine call produces.  
-- 
(Usual disclaimer line.)
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
(decvax,ihnp4,uiucdcs)!pur-ee!stat-l!cik
(decwrl,hplabs,ucbvax)!purdue!stat-l!cik
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu

Re: HLL vs. assembler

#4566

Author: Tim Rentsch
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1987 01:29

39 lines
2279 bytes

In article <486@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

> It is correct that most subroutine calls do a lot, and that subroutine
> salling is "absolutely" faster than it was many years ago.  However,
> it is relatively far slower.  Also, much of the time I do not want all
> of the junk that a subroutine call produces.  

The poster intends this as an argument in favor of assembly, as
opposed to HLL's.

Notice, however, that the observation (even if true) argues *against*
assembly and in favor of HLL's.  

Reason:  in assembly a call is a call, whereas in an HLL what is
written as a procedure *need not* be compiled into a closed
subroutine.  In assembly, if you write CALLS (or whatever your
favorite machines call instruction is), you get CALLS;  in an HLL,
if you write PROCEDURE (or whatever your favorite HLL's subroutine
declaration keyword is), you *might or might not* get something called
with a subroutine call instruction, on *any* machine.

Upon reflection, I realized that the poster is arguing not against
HLL's but against the practices of structured programming.  I won't
argue the virtues of structured programming here (although I happen
to believe in them), but it seems worth pointing out that
non-structured code (i.e., with no subroutine calls) can just as well
be written in an HLL as in assembly language.  This is not an
argument against HLL's, even if (as the quoted poster seems to) you
believe in non-structured code.

If you DO believe in structured code, then the observation is in
favor of HLL's (as the "reason" paragraph explains).

Final point:  "It is relatively far slower."?!  Could you supply
some facts which support this opinion?

cheers,

txr

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads