| ??? 12/09/08 15:46 Read: times |
#160796 - You will have trouble convincing me ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Andy Neil said:
Richard Erlacher said:
What I meant was that it generates the least voluminous object code. That's not down to the choice of programming language - that's down to the skill & experience of the programmer. We've seen plenty of examples here of novice, inexperienced programmers producing unnecessarily "voluminous" code. I'd bet that the best-optimized compilers still don't produce smaller code, overall, than a programmer with six months' experience. Assembler, like any other programming language, is just a tool - the quality of the result depends more on the skill of the user than the particular tool chosen.
Of course, with assembler, it doesn't add anything to what the programmer writes - so any code bloat or inefficiency is entirely the programmer's own fault! Perhaps that's true, but it's not possible for the "bloat" to become automatic, and, thereby, transparent to the programmer. Example: Try writing a complete monitor program for any MCU that fits, completely, in 256 bytes. That was done for nearly EVERY 8-bit micro back in the '70s. It must have a memory editor and a loader, along with a limited set of debugging features. Now try accomplishing that in 'C', Basic, or Pascal. RE |
