CompuServe Messages

>>>I am against the use of HLL's by programmers making commercial >programs if they didn't program the HLL themselves because of the errors. >>But compiler writers usually don't necessarily also write the business apps too. And I'd be hard pressed to stop one project so that the same programmer could spend his or her time fixing the compiler before resuming (this is partially why I think some (not all) companies are somewhat kidding themselves when the go for "free" things like gcc and g++, anyway, that another discussion completely). And along with that line of reasoning, why isn't it also true that the programmer should also have been required to have written the editor they are using, the linker, the profiler, the operating systems, the networks?<< I agree totally. I am quite convinced this would be an ideal situation. I realize however that life is perhaps a bit too short for this. This does not diminish the fact that this is, in my view, an ideal situation. I realize of course that there are many reasons making this approach unsuited for reality. >>Because that is not their only goals. Because that is not necessary the situation. Because, in fact, it is usually only more select part of the code that is the bottleneck. And so on.<< I agree. However the underlying idea of what I said remains true: At least in principle, a program written in assembler will always be more efficient than another for the same reason that; translating from English to French it doesn't make much sense to use Russian as an intermediate language. Bart Van Bockstaele at 100574.2352@compuserve.com … On AutoPilot and Amiga all the way from Belgium NOT from Mars!…