> One area which sometimes needs to be included in the 
> equation is the ability to do crucially time bound things 
> within crucial time. This may relate to code length but may 
> be more complex than sheer size. While often enough HLL will 
> do well enough here too, when speed or other crucial and 
> complex inter-relationships matter assembler often has the 
> edge.

I first misinterpreted this as 'crutial time' referring to development
time, which would give HLL the edge, not assembler. Of course, if local
speed is of the utmost importance assembler might have the edge, but
still: do the calculation! Alternatives are to use HLL, with a
faster/larger chip, or to use assembler, with a slower/cheaper chip. As
always, the number of units that will be produced will decide which is
the better alternative.

And of course combining HLL and assembler is often better than using one
or the other exlusively.

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