Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- From: "randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Oct 2006 16:45:21 -0700
Betov wrote:
I had the same feeling as you, at the time Windows won the
commercial war. At that time, programming win32 Assembly
was considered an impossible thing, and i have been stupid
enough for believing this.
You weren't looking very hard. At the time you did this ( 1998, by your
own personal history) several books on assembly language were
describing how to write applications in assembly for Windows.
So, instead of writting C, i choosed
to stop any programming activity. Several years later, this
admitted idea was proven wrong.
I don't know where you got the idea that it was impossible. Surely as
an assembly language programmer you realize that anything that can be
done in a high-level compiled language can be done in assembly as well.
Nowaday, considering the explosure of the processors offers,
i also fee, again, in the same feeling, from several points
of view. The first one is, of course, that dispiting any
evidence, it is close to impossible to convince anyone that
programming real life Applications, in Assembly, is a good
choice.
Because it usually isn't.
Ever wonder *why* you have difficulty convincing people of this?
The bottom line is that most programmers have quite a bit more
programming experience than you do, i.e., they know one or more HLLs,
so they're able to compare the effort needed to write code in assembly
vs. a HLL. You, only knowing assembly (and a smattering of BASIC,
apparently), aren't in a good position to make such decisions about
appropriate language choice.
The second one is, effectively, that the oncoming
of new processors, make, so to say, the mythology of the
portability become a real thing, and the nightmare true.
???
I would love to be proven wrong, one another time, in a
couple of years.
You were proven wrong when you first came up with this "idea" back in
1998. Just as you've not convinced anyone of your "idea", you refuse
to accept the fact that you were wrong.
Now what all this nonsense has to do with RISC vs. CISC, I haven't a
clue.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- From: Betov
- Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- References:
- To RISC or not to RISC
- From: KJH
- Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- From: Betov
- To RISC or not to RISC
- Prev by Date: Re: A modern view of the halting problem
- Next by Date: Re: 12 Misconceptions
- Previous by thread: Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- Next by thread: Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
