On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Olin Lathrop wrote:

> People that use compilers claim it lets them "develop faster" without having
> to sweat the details.  Personally I think this is bunk, and that the real
> reason is they just aren't that good at assembler and don't want to (or
> can't) learn it.  People don't want to admit this, so they come up with all
> kinds of reasons why using a compiler is "better".  Either way you still
> have to have a good grasp of what the hardware is doing.  A compiler on a
> small system will only hide the hardware from you to an extent, and sooner
> or later you will get into trouble if you don't understand what is going on
> at the instruction level.

Hmm, yes, you're quite right.  We're all part of a vast conspiracy to
conceal the little-known but obvious fact that all C programmers are
incompetent, lazy people wuo lie to cover their tracks.  Are we happy now?

> Properly written assembler can be just as fast to write and maintainable as
> compiled code, but leaves no doubt what is going on at the instruction
> level.

Properly written C code can be written far faster by someone more
comfortable writing C code than assembler.  The compiler also generates an
ASM listing, so the programmer can -- and should -- review what the
compiler is doing as a sanity check.  I for one am perfectly capable of
programming a PIC in asembly language, but compared to many other
processors I've used it's simply a colossal pain in the ass.  I use C
instead of assembler because I don't have to deal with memory allocation,
bank switching or any of the other nonsense, it's got a sane syntax, and
dealing with multibyte and floating point variables is a simple matter of
writing the logic without having to hash out the low-level mechanics of
it.  I know I can trust the compiler to correctly perform these operations
because I've tested them.  I can, if needed, break a C statement down to
smaller component operations to gain finer control of what assembly code
is generated - but I very seldom need to do so.  On the flip side, I'm not
using a PIC barely adequate for the task at hand, so getting every last
clock cycle or byte of memory out of it is not that critical.  If I get to
that point, I know I'm using the wrong processor anyway.

> Improperly written code is useless no matter what language it is
> written in.  Unfortunately, 99% of all code out there I've seen is
> poorly written.

By your standards, perhaps.  Obviously by someone's standards 99% of it
is adequate for the task, delivered on time, and on budget.  I think 99% of
all cars on the road are crap, too.  Obviously they work for some people.
Have you considered that 99% of the code you look at is either something
you've been called in to fix, or was written by novices?

> Beware that this is a religious issue with many people.  I know I'm going to
> get the usual hate mail for saying this.  Oh well.  Watch the flood of
> indignant responses, but keep in mind the real reason behind the protests.

Right, I keep forgetting - we're incompetent, lazy liars trying to mislead
people.  Perhaps if your statements were not quite so narrow-minded and
patently offensive to anyone who happens to have a different point of view
than your own, you wouldn't get so many irritated responses.

Dale

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics