| ??? 07/20/09 16:51 Read: times |
#167619 - Don't be so sure ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
If you think HLL's are the be-all and end-all, just consider that those crappy cellphones that barely work much of the time, are glued together with other features, e.g. camera, etc, that don't work all that well either, are very likely all programmed in HLL's.
oh, how 'crappy' they would be if programmed in asm. Given competent programmers, there's no reason to think that ASM would take much longer than 'C'. If you think that 'C' relieves the programmer of the burden of worrying about the hardware, then you're in trouble right away, because "the devil's in the (low-level) details." I once was involved with developing a cellphone for one of the major manufacturers. The code was several MB and the deadline was 2 months "We need this before the competition has it". Time pressure is a factor, but, considering that programmers should know the environment, and not just the tools, it shouldn't take more than, say 10% longer to produce good, solid ASM, while figuring out where the 'C' code went wrong might take much longer, since it easily allows one to "overlook" a low-level detail. Just look at the time the competition 'allowed' their developers to come up with an I-phone lookalike.
Erik |
