New slides about Go

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

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"<newshound2 at digitalmars.com>  wrote in message
> news:i98ub5$2bk7$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Yeah, and I've done that. It doesn't work out as well as you say, nor is
>> it that easy. Problems:
>>
>> 1. You have to reimplement it for every platform and every memory model.
>> 2. For some systems, like Windows, there are a wide variety of assemblers.
>> They all use slightly different syntax. Distributing an asm file means an
>> *unending* stream of complaints from people who don't have an assembler or
>> have a different one than yours.
>> 3. Getting all the boilerplate segment declarations right is a nuisance.
>> 4. Name mangling.
>> 5. Next your asm code all breaks when you want to recompile your app as a
>> shared library.
>> 6. Asm files are a nightmare on OSX.
>>
>> A language should be there to solve problems, not create them :-)
>>
>> Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>> Easy, just implement a small assembly funtion.
>>>
>>> Not everything has to be in the language.
>>>
>>> "Walter Bright"<newshound2 at digitalmars.com>  wrote in message
>>> news:i984lr$odj$3 at 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.
>>>
>