Olin Lathrop wrote:
> sergio masci wrote:
>> It's hard to
>> justify taking 10 to 20 times longer to produce a program
> 
> I wasn't going to get into this food fight, and was going to silently ignore
> that the HLL folks are making the implicit and sometimes incorrect
> assumption that assembler takes longer to write.  This statement however is
> so far into the rediculous zone that I can't let it go.
> 
> Asm only takes "10 to 20 times" longer to write if you compare a good HLL
> programer with a incompetent assembly programmer.  My own experience, mostly
> with Microchip C18, is that it probably takes 20% to 50% longer to do the
> same thing in C18 when you look at the full end to end time, including
> debugging.

OK, Olin, I'll take you on. Let's see you switch to a different
architecture(non-PIC) and make that claim. No, you can't have a month to
make libraries of needed functions, but you must create those reusable
needed functions while developing your program.

See, it takes more time to do a project in assembler now!

Also judging from years of experience reading your posts, I think you
are an exceptional person, and being an exception, just using you as an
example would be a poor sample. To do this properly we need to get a
group of programmers, plop them in a room with some weird processor, and
half of them use assembler and half use C. Then switch and try again.

Finally, I'm glad you chose C18 as your example of a bad C compiler. I
agree with you there :) The only good thing about it is that it does
work and is supported.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

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