Re: Avatar

[seah@ee.rochester.edu (David Seah)]

In article <1993Feb11.144527.6928@exu.ericsson.se> exuhag@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>[we] all realize that HLLs are preferable to assembly, at least when ease
>of programming is the concern.  But if you look at what has happened
>to microcomputer software since HLL programming has become standard
>then it is not at all clear thar this is any kind of advance.  Now
>we have 12 meg word processors that are slower than their text mode
>equivalents.  Games have become less compelling as lazy programmers take
>lazy approaches to designing them.  And so on.

Taken by itself, the use of HLL programming would not appear to be an
advance - particularly if one considers only the metrics you have cited :)
The advancement has come first in the form of faster hardware, followed by
the use of HLLs.  This has paralleled the rise of so-called computing
standards, such as X and Windows (be careful what you wish for when you
ask for a GUI, guys!).

Certainly, those 12-meg word processors have gotten slower in comparison
to their text-based cousins, but they are also much more complex, running
on top of more complex operating systems.  The comment on lazy programmers
is more valid, but you can not pin this entirely on HLLs.  So that 12-meg
word processor takes five times longer to search than the 1-meg text version.
They're probably both written in a HLL these days.  Or say that an HLL
programmer uses a cheesy linear search algorithm of some kind.  An ASM
programmer can use the same one, and be much faster by virtue of not having
a lot of overhead.  Do I respect the ASM guy for writing "Awesome code"?
No.  I can appreciate clever technique in assembly language, but only
if it's not used as an excuse for basic shortcomings in the overall program.
Any dink can shave cycles or cut the size of the excutable if they have
half a brain.  This isn't to say that assembly language is lame.  It's
very cool.  Just use it like a scalpel, and not as a statement on how
k00l you are.

The characteristics of good design and solid craftsmanship have remained
constant since the rise of Man.  Performance increases in hardware and
software make it easier to produce the trimmings of a real working
application.  In some respects, it has lowered the threshold and learning
curve.  Anyone can make an impressive-looking piece of software now.
With this kind of enabling technology, you are bound to get a lot of
crap.  Look at what Desktop Publishing has spawned...thousands of ordinary 
people doing page layout!  This is something of an advance.  But 90%
of those people have difficulty folding a napkin so the edges line up.
Ignorance of design aesthetic produces nasty looking posters and flyers.
Same goes for today's advanced software tools.

[Hague's emphasis on the quality of the development environment versus
 availability of a particular HLL skipped]

>IMO, the Avatar will not be the computer for everyone.  If you revel
>in the old computer industry saws ("faster is always better," "assembly
>language is too hard," "C is the ultimate programming language") then
>why not get a PC or a Sun?  The Avatar is a bold experiment, one doomed
>to fail.  But a bold experiment, nonetheless.

It'll be interesting to see.  If they can sell Avatar as a useful and
unique system as opposed to a bunch of components, maybe they'll have 
something.
-- 
Dave Seah (seah@ee.rochester.edu, AFCDaveS@aol.com)
That's Rochester, New York!