> > Given sufficient time a good assembler programmer can fit
> > an application
> > in a smaller code size than a HLL programmer. Given 
> > sufficient code
> > space a HLL programmer can write the same application in 
> > less time.
> 
> I agree that the chances of a compiler being so good that it 
> can consistently under-size relative to a top assembly 
> language programmer is very slight.
> However, the very very very best compilers can write more 
> compact code than an assembler writer can write without 
> justifying being fired.

Even mediocre compilers can be used to finish an application in much
less time than it would take to write in assembler. 

Total cost of a product is 'number of products' * 'unit cost' +
'development cost': N * U + D. Low N means D dominates (use HLL), large
N means U dominates (use assembler). Most serious products/projects are
somewhere inbetween. I invite everyone to do the calculation (however
approximate it will be) instead of relying on emotional arguments.

The above is of course very very crude, but it is often sufficient for a
first descision. Other arguments (like development time, or existing
investments in libraries or people) might overrule the caculation.

It is my personal experience (!= conviction) that in most cases I have
been in HLL is a better choice.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
  

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist