Portable asm

[Cesar Quiroz]

Herman Rubin has consistently criticized in this group high-level
language designers/implementors for not producing the portable
assembler he wishes to use.  (Quotes here are from article
<703 at l.cc.purdue.edu>, but if you have been reading this group you
could supply abundant examples of your own.)  For instance,

:...
:If a programmer says that something is inline, and this should be a feature
:of any language, the compiler should at most point out why this is not good,
:but the judgment must be that of the programmer.
:...
:I consider a programming language and an operating system to be a procedure
:whereby the user is enabled to more easily use the power of the computer.
:It is a great mistake to restrict a programming language.
:...
:But in too many cases, the existing HLLs may produce good code if small
:modifications are made.  In many cases, these modifications are machine
:independent--I can give you cases of this.  It may even be as simple as
:saying
:	This is what is needed; implement this block efficiently, while
:	maintaining its compatibility with the rest of the program.

Nice, pro-freedom stance.  It is easy to sympathize with the poor
programmer who needs to squeeze another microsecond off a tight
loop, but sympathy alone won't relieve him from his plight.  In
addition to criticizing the short-sighted gang of compiler writers,
one could figure out *how* to remove "unnecessary" restrictions in
programming language design.  Rubin thinks it is possible,

:...
:Frankly, I believe that if someone developed a decent high-level, overloaded
:operator, reasonable syntax assembler it would have a good chance of
:supplanting C.  Add the other useful features of C and you have a good
:language.

I would like very much if such a portable-assembler/medium-level-PL
were to be proposed.  I think Rubin has made his objections to the
state of the art clear enough, but I don't think he has provided
evidence to advance the idea that his desires are realizable.  How
about coming with a first cut of a language design, with supporting
argument for the contention that it will be hardware-inspired and
still portable?

My personal guess is that, were he to try, Rubin would come out with
a language in the general class of C/Bliss/BCPL.  The exercise would
be fruitful still: no more negative comments, once he realizes that
language designers are not (totally) crazy, and that "progress in
programming", if anything, means getting *away* from the vagaries of
the hardware.

Looking forward for the manual,
Cesar

-- 
Cesar Augusto  Quiroz Gonzalez
Department of Computer Science     ...allegra!rochester!quiroz
University of Rochester            or
Rochester,  NY 14627               quiroz at cs.rochester.edu