NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/programmer/919

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 3.0 KB

Path: informatik.tu-muenchen.de!fischerj
From: [e-mail] (Juergen "Rally" Fischer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: PPC compilers
Date: 12 Jan 1996 17:45:11 GMT
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4d66n7$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4com6v$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4crfb9$[e-mail]> <4cro82$[e-mail]> <4cselp$[e-mail]> <4ctghg$[e-mail]> <4cv5j8$[e-mail]> <4d0k1i$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hphalle8a.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Originator: [e-mail]


In article <4d0k1i$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael van Elst) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Juergen "Rally" Fischer) writes:

|> You have problems with the english language.
|>
|> You said that you can't see how many bytes are written in
|>
|> *a++ = *b++;
|>
|> but you can in
|>
|> move.w (a0)+,(a1)+
|>
|> And you said this was an advantage.

This is true, I said in the special case I mentioned it's an advantage,
and I stressed I only tell about this case:

- debugging this line
- having not included the type definitions in the C-case, but defined
  it buggily char * in the header.

for this special case, if the routine is for example to copy an array
to colorregisters, a move.b will hit my eyes, while in the C case I
would maybe rather scan the instructions around for bugs.

If you flame me because your oppinion is, that also in this special
case C is an advantage,  because, uhm... for example the qustion
"wait a minute, what is that *p++ doing" comes to your mind everytime
you see a pointer, and so you look at the type definition and find the
bug (just an example), then ok.

|>
|> >but as Michael van Elst uses to
|> >add "preconditions" to claims...
|>
|> Again you have problems with the language. You are adding preconditions.

Yes, me, too, but to MY claims, not to the ones of others.

I could prove all your 100% rkm style code wrong if I used the
precondition "does it work under MS-DOS 3.1" ;)

|>
|> >Yes, I would say an assembler programmer has to care about the wordsize
|> >in each instruction. But I never said that this is an advantage.
|>
|> You are lying.

Naaah. Look, "in each instruction". This is about generally writing
code. I wanted to give a special counter example where the asm version
is more clear.

begin :) mode

The thing is, you maybe WANT me to tell "it is gernerally a advantage
of assembler, that you got to do all the type conversions", because
maybe you need a reason to get rid of the daily 'c00l c0d3r' ;)

:)


|> --
|>                                 Michael van Elst
|>
|> Internet: [e-mail]
|>                                 "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   [e-mail] (Juergen "Rally" Fischer)   =:)