> To that end, the Plan 9 syntax is fine for teaching assembler. And > so doing, a person is better able to write good C code. The only > disadvantage is when learning the assembler one has to translate front > the manufacturer's documentation and the Plan 9 standard syntax.
I think too much depends on the perception of a need to use assembly. If you start from the assumption that assembly can be relegated to pin-point optimisation on one hand and architecture-focused instructions on the other, that leaves a huge space in the middle where one can use a more human notation to represent abstractions. But when you cannot escape needing to use architecture-dependent coding for abstract concepts, the battle is irreversibly lost. Even, maybe especially, Plan 9 gecomes an easily resisted force trying to shift an immovable object. Lucio.
