Re: Low-level vs. High-level programming (was My First Computer)

[Scott Moore <scott.moore6@attbi.com>]

Joel Kolstad wrote:

> -- Having low-level assembly skills certainly is useful.  But you could take
> it even further than that -- how many of the 'old school' 8 bit assembly
> programmers are familiar with modern superscalar processor design these
> days?  Where overall CPU performance is all about keeping the various
> parallel execution modules within the CPU busy by avoiding data dependencies
> and other forms of 'difficult to predict' execution?  With a supserscalar
> CPU, often the optimal assembly code looks like a God-awful mess.  For,
> e.g., digital signal processing routine, a good C compiler would probably
> produce better code than someone coding with the 'linear' assembly language
> mindset that the older RISC and single/multi-cycle CPUs used.  

Lets see. I started at 20 years of age on Z80 and better CPUs in the 1978 time
frame. Because CPUs were moving rapidly, I studied not only the CPU designs
that were being proposed but also old systems like the IBM 360 and PDP-11.
When the 8086 came out, I was disgusted, but eventually made extensive use
of the product. I programmed both C and assembly on Unix for the 68000 processor
using one of the first Unix ports to microprocessors (Unisoft). Later in the
1980s, I went to work on the design for the sucessor to the Z80, the Z280,
because I liked CPUs and wanted to get into the design of one. In the 1990s
I did MIPS, Power PC, and pentium designs. Today I work on the AMD 64 bit
processor family, which just came out only about a month ago.

I'm sure there were 8 bit programmers who let their skills ossify. Most of
them are in management now.

-- 
For most men, true happiness can only be achieved with a woman.
Also for most men, true happiness can only be achieved without a woman.
Sharp minds have noted that these two rules tend to conflict.....