[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Low-level vs. High-level programming
- Subject: Re: Low-level vs. High-level programming
- From: "Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:22:04 -0500
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm, comp.sys.apple2, rec.games.video.classic, comp.os.cpm
- References: <b3qo6h$5ar$1@barad-dur.nas.com> <bd5fsv$qli$5@titan.btinternet.com> <bd6942$1595$1@merope.saaf.se> <bd6if8$829$5@titan.btinternet.com> <bd901e$22pj$1@merope.saaf.se> <bd96m2$omr$5@hercules.btinternet.com> <E0%Ja.2948$lT4.896@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com> <bdapi8$t3m$5@titan.btinternet.com>
- Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.sys.cbm:59307 comp.sys.apple2:31881 rec.games.video.classic:59409 comp.os.cpm:13551
"Kevin Lawton" <kepla@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bdapi8$t3m$5@titan.btinternet.com...
<snip>
> Okey-dokey: So notwithstanding the somewhat obvioous point that low-level
> languages (like assembler) will probably better facilitate low-level
access
> (such as direct memory-mapped port access) than high-level languages, then
> just what sort of tasks are being considered to be possible in assembley
> language but not in a high level language like Algol, Fortran, Cobol, C,
> Pascal or Java ?
> Kevin.
> P.S.: BTW can anyone remember what the original point being discussed in
> this thread was ?
I don't know what the original post was, but by going by the subject line it
sounds like it is on tartget.