4 ms·
we did? I was a programmer 30 years ago, and what was being widely used was cobol, qbasic, pascal, even ada, meanwhile assembly was already at this point relega
by boltzmann-brain 4y ago
we did? I was a programmer 30 years ago, and what was being widely used was cobol, qbasic, pascal, even ada, meanwhile assembly was already at this point relegated to optimization (in non-business applications) or nothing (in business applications, where structured programming was a line manager's mantra, just like OOP was later, then FP, and so on)
- pjmlp 4y agoFor example, Lotus 1-2-3.
- boltzmann-brain 4y agoLotus 1-2-3 was a legacy code base already 30 years ago. Which was one of the contributing reasons to why it eventually died.
- pjmlp 4y agoI can provide examples, PC Tools for one. I didn't wrote that every developer out there was writing 100% of business applications in Assembly, and I guess I don't need to explain the difference between ∃ x and ∀ x.
- rep_lodsb 4y ago>cobol, qbasic, pascal, even ada Except for QBasic, all of them compile to machine code and have features that can't be represented in idiomatic C, but are often trivial to implement on the underlying hardware.
- boltzmann-brain 4y agoNo arguing that. It still doesn't mean that writing stuff in assembly is better than leaving it higher level. Nowadays we have new approaches that didn't exist back then. Look up any JavaScript optimization techniques to see stuff that's simply not possible to do once your code is moved down to assembly because it loses semantics. Or look at fusion and type erasure in Haskell. In my original comment, I wasn't arguing about the state of things 30 years ago.