ASM vs HLL

[jab at uokvax.UUCP]

/***** uokvax:net.lang.c / brl-tgr!cottrell / 12:01 pm  Jan 30, 1985 */
> > > >	For the bare language, I might agree. However, any macro programmer
> > > >worth the name after a year or so will have developed a set of macros
> > > >that enable high level constructs but still allow precise control of
> > > >the machine.
> > > 
> > > AAAARGH!!!!!  One of the most common complaints I hear from those
> > > who must maintain code is that the programmer had developed his own
> > > personal language out of macros.  THIS DOESN'T MAKE CODE EASIER
> > > TO MAINTAIN, IT MAKES IT FAR, FAR, HARDER.
> > 
> > Case in point:  ever tried to work on the Bourne shell code?
> 
> That's part of programming. What do you think the macro capability
> is there for?

Clarity and portability. I'm not above writing a set of library routines
to make my life easier (the Software Tools distribution is a good example
of such a set) but except for "extreme" circumstances, it's not clear that it's
worth it to the N'th guy down the line who has to maintain the code.

At the University of Oklahoma, our PDP-11 software came from the Purdue/ECN:
this gave the person setting up this machine a fine base to start with. The
one thing that constantly bit us was a person there who wrote all his programs
(system-wide programs, like the editor!) to use HIS OWN VERSION of the Standard
I/O library. This guy #include'd it from his HOME directory! (No, John, it
wasn't you.)

Try maintaining that.

	Jeff Bowles
	Lisle, IL