Sounds like violent agreement to me.
Andrei
On 10/15/10 4:17 CDT, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Still most modern languages are moving away from inline assembly.
Even Microsoft has dropped inline assembly support for the 64bit version of
Visual C++, pointing
developers to MASM.
People will always complain no matter what. Just use the official assembler
for the target platform.
Personally the last time I used inline assembly I was still target MS-DOS,
long time ago and actually
it is one of the features I don't like in D.
--
Paulo
"Walter Bright"<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:i98ub5$2bk...@digitalmars.com...
Yeah, and I've done that. It doesn't work out as well as you say, nor is
it that easy. Problems:
1. You have to reimplement it for every platform and every memory model.
2. For some systems, like Windows, there are a wide variety of assemblers.
They all use slightly different syntax. Distributing an asm file means an
*unending* stream of complaints from people who don't have an assembler or
have a different one than yours.
3. Getting all the boilerplate segment declarations right is a nuisance.
4. Name mangling.
5. Next your asm code all breaks when you want to recompile your app as a
shared library.
6. Asm files are a nightmare on OSX.
A language should be there to solve problems, not create them :-)
Paulo Pinto wrote:
Easy, just implement a small assembly funtion.
Not everything has to be in the language.
"Walter Bright"<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:i984lr$od...@digitalmars.com...
Walter Bright wrote:
It's hard to see how to implement, say, a storage allocator with no
pointer arithmetic.
Here's another one. Try implementing va_arg without pointer arithmetic.
