Re: Randall is just talking out his arse again...

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:20:33 -0700, The_Sage <The_Sage@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Reply to article by: "a\\/b" <al@xxx>
>>Date written: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:27:31 GMT
>>MsgID:<4ifrf1h9tusfud7qsb1rstbodu4ubkl895@xxxxxxx>
>>>Activity Case A Case B Difference
>>> Assembler Fortran
>>> (10,000 Lines) (3,000 Lines)
>>>Requirement 2 Months 2 Months 0
>>>Design 3 Months 3 Months 0
>>>Coding 10 Months 3 Months -7
>>>Integration/Test 5 Months 3 Months -2
>>>User Documentation 2 Months 2 Months 0
>>>Management/Support 3 Months 2 Months -1
>>>Total 25 Months 15 Months -10
>
>>>Total Costs $125,000 $75,000 ($50,000)
>>>Cost/Src Line $12.50 $25.00 $12.50
>>>Lines/Person/Month 400 200 -200
>>>Cost Per FP $4,166.67 $2,500.00 ($1,666.67)
>>>FP/Person/Month 1.2 2 +0.8
>
>>>If you want to write an average of 1 line of ASM for every 2 lines you could
>>>write in FORTRAN, if you want to write 1.2 functions in ASM for every 2
>>>functions you could write in FORTRAN, if you would rather run a business where
>>>you lose $.67 for every line of code you write as compared to FORTRAN, and if
>>>you would rather spend 1.67 days writing the same amount of final code you could
>>>have written in FORTRAN in 1.0 days, then be my guest, but while you will still
>>>be writing and debugging your program, I will be done with mine and almost
>>>finished with a second project. Yeah, you are really at the forefront of
>>>technology with your claims of the superiority of ASM.
>
>>There is something that i don't understand until now: why assembly has
>>no need of libraryes?
>
>The ASM language could use some libraries, but the problem is:
>
>1) By definition ASM is a reflection of the processor hardware and is used as
>such, and libraries do not reflect the processor hardware but the operating
>system

Good routines should not have as the first shoot in
"processor hardware" (speed) nor in "operating system" but
*the first thing* is "minimize the chance of errors" and "find all in
few routines"

If there are some parts that have to need of speed then use special
fast routines

assembly is good for use routines but someone have to 'get right' (i
like for example sprintf) i don't think the routines of one library
should be numerous.

Assembly is superior in use of the routines respect the languages that
i have seen (C, C++, Pascal) because it is easy to accede to the stack

>2) No one could ever agree on a standardized ASM library. ASM could have used
>ANSI C libraries but if you had to buy ANSI C to use them, why use ASM when you
>could use the far superior HLL instead?

c is not superior, it allow to see different things
but i think: with assembly i *see more*
then assembly is superior in loops to every language i know
people "if, while, for, etc" are all wrong,
assembly jumps 'is the answer' :)

>>Is it possible that this cost depends because they (assembly
>>programmers) have to write every time all by scratch?
>
>The cost depends on complexity of code and ASM is more complex than FORTRAN or
>C.

no assembly is more easy than C
the advantage of C is only that it is *more fast to write* especially
fast in writing some routines that deal with array of chars, and it
have some very good library functions

>As anyone but "real programmers" (http://dict.die.net/real%20programmer/)
>realize, say like Randall for example, "Assembler is generally no longer
>considered interesting or appropriate for anything but HLL implementation, glue,
>and a few time-critical and hardware-specific uses in systems programs"
>(http://dict.die.net/languages%20of%20choice/).

in my experience peoples programmers and me too, get wrong (only God
in the sky gets right)

>Even more important is the fact that, unlike the majority of HLLs, ASM lacks
>independance from a particular computer hardware architecture,

this is true

>lacks standardization of libraries,

true

>fails to work with abstractions,

it is false, assembly is for definition the low language
any 'abstraction' should be not allowed
if you like "abstractions" you can try c++

>lacks support for reliability or safety,

it is false because assembly is easy to debug

>fails to keep up with computer technology,

what is "keep up"?

>lacks
>appropriate engineering-based support tools and environments,

it is false if you see Rosasm. For me i don't need environments: only
the Nasm assembler and my macro substitution program

>lacks clarity in the source code,

assembly code that i write is clear like the sun to me

>lacks complexity management,

it is false

>lacks straightfoward and user
>friendly concurrency support,

?

>lacks distributed system support,

?

>has poor
>maintainability,

?

>lacks true object-oriented programming support, lacks
>portability, etc, etc, etc.

these things are above repeat

>The point of a programming language to make it simple to transfer thoughts
>from an idea to a program.

no there is the only reason of *more fast to write*

>People do not think naturally in ASM and languages
>that use unnatural terms and syntax are not productive...duh!

there are fields where assembly is more natural *easy* and productive:
for example define +*- != == etc or call functions or use stack
or talk to hardware

>>some time i see the NG: muc.lists.bugtraq
>>do you know how many error they find?
>
>ASM is very conducive to creating bugs,

yes but they are find soon

>hence the reason is was abadonded years ago as a primary language by all

years ago, but not for me now
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: HLA v2.x and / or LASM suggestion: Win32 Resources
    ... Assembler" probably always get when people are actually talking about ... machine_ from ASM or even some of the more "low-level" C programming - ... "Abstraction" - as I keep saying and, one day, I Hope people will ... writing code thinking it's "portable" when, in fact, it contains ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: What micros do you actually hate to work with?
    ... with less than tiny asm ... hassle to work with 32 bit longs in assembler for an 8 bit uP, ... Microchip's C compiler tools and their assembly under MPLAB. ... In this case, also, I was the only programmer. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Why do we use different files for C ?
    ... > An ideal asm community for a beginner of course would be ... > libraries to extend and give power to the asm programming ... There are allready working examples and apps that use the webcam in the SDK as I recall. ... to use BASIC and assembler. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Why use assembly?
    ... I use asm because, when given a propper tool, like RosAsm, its simply the easiest, clearest language. ... that learning asm with some of the older assembler may actually be a pain in the ass. ... The remaining bits that are not easy, comes from situations like when you have to write your own code for things that just take a single line of code in a HLL. ... Becomming an asm programmer is to take the step from beeing a servant in the dark to beeing the master of your own destiny in the programming world. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: What micros do you actually hate to work with?
    ... with less than tiny asm ... hassle to work with 32 bit longs in assembler for an 8 bit uP, ... Microchip's C compiler tools and their assembly under MPLAB. ... After writing a nicely designed equivalent in C, ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)