Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:48:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ben Schollnick <bscholl AT eznet DOT net>
To: Gremlin <Gremlin AT f20 DOT n396 DOT z1 DOT fidonet DOT org>
cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re:  source code
In-Reply-To: <e84_9709211138@net396.fidonet.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970921144313.30507C-100000@shell1.eznet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


>        For something like OS, isn't ASM a *good* thing?  I know very little 
> about assembly, but isn't it the language that can best access the computer 
> directly?  I thought you would want that in an OS...?

The nice thing about assembly is that it forces the programmer to
concentrate on what is the *GOAL*, and the quickest "path" to the goal.

The disadvantage is that it is hard to mantain.

Most high level programming languages (these days) can convert code to
assembly/machine language to roughly the same degree of optimization.  (IE
Borland pascal / Borland C++ will run roughly the same speed with THE SAME
ALGORTHIUM)....

So, if you can optimize the algorithiu, sure it'll be slightly slower than
assembly (maybe by 5%? depending on application), but it'll be easier to
keep upgraded...

		Ben