From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: The need for an assem
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:11:14 GMT

In article <5069.168.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin)  writes:
>CL> .I drive a 5-speed manual; you sound like you drive a two-speed automatic.
>
>I drive both.  I'm not enough of a masochist, or sufficiently
>detached from reality to believe that the 5 speed manual is better
>when I drive through Manhattan (NY, not Kansas) traffic.  Yes, I get
>better control, POTENTIALLY better milage, etc. etc. with the manual.
>But, in the situation cited, I gain nothing and sacrifice much.  If I
>had to exclusively choose between manual and automatic, I'd choose
>automatic. (Under normal conditions, about 80% of my driving is in the
>manual.)

I totally disagree with you.  I probably drive *more* than you do in Manhattan
as that's where most of my clients are.  I'm one of the few drivers *feared*
by the typical New York City cab-drivers who in turn intimidate virtually
everyone else with their antics.  My "crowning achievement" was when I was
able to peel out again two of these clowns on either side of me (155 HP and
limited-slip rear-end) as they *both* attempted to cut me off from a red
light start, and I was a half-block in front of them as they nearly hit
each other!

With only an automatic, all I can do is drive as agressively and stupidly
as they do, swinging back and forth between lanes to ward off fair use of
the road in the short spurts between red lights that has average Manhattan
traffic moving at about 4.6 MPH.  Instead, with the good low-end torque of 
a manual transmission, I can evade them entirely.  If you are driving a
wimpy 5-speed no-power car, you don't *belong* in Manhattan!

So, as the analogy to assembler went, if all you care about is getting to
point B from point A, and time is no object, go drive your inefficient
automatics with insufficient gears, longer stopping distances, worse mileage,
but less driving skills required, etc.  But if part of the fun is in how
you get there, and how quickly, etc., go learn how to effectively use a
more powerful device.

>
>So what's your point?  Over the entire spectrum of usage, an automatic
>is likely to be a more effective tool than a manual and an HLL
>is likely to be a more effective tool than an asm.  If I had to choose
>just one, it'd be an HLL.

Your analogy is defective, and in any case we resolved what's wrong with
the language argument already, so don't dredge that up.

>
>(BTW, my automatic transmission allows me to manually select gears, and
>my HLL allows me to embed inline asm code.)

That's totally bogus.  No automatic selects gears, merely you may be able
to limit the *top* gear it shifts into.  Admittedly, in some dynamic
situations that might be good enough, but not in all.  To further the
defect of the analogy, there are cases where asm code has to be 100% of the
solution to the problem because the structure of the hll limits solving of
the problem.  This was also discussed at length earlier.  My only point here
is don't minimalize the point that the *only* reason to write asm code is
something exactly expressible in a combination of hll and a smattering of
asm.  There are applications where a smattering of hll can be used with
a vast majority of asm, and the hll is extraneous in the process and best
avoided.

Since no new material is presented on the language issue, let's drop it here.
Further comments about cars per se are acceptable.

cjl

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.admin