New slides about Go

[Walter Bright]

Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Still most modern languages are moving away from inline assembly.

It's a pain to write an inline assembler and figure out how to integrate it in 
with the rest of the compiler. I can see why compiler writers don't want to do 
it, and look for reasons not to.

Most modern languages do not even generate code - they target the JVM or CLI.


> Even Microsoft has dropped inline assembly support for the 64bit version of 
> Visual C++, pointing
> developers to MASM.

I'd be curious as to their rationale.


> People will always complain no matter what. Just use the official assembler 
> for the target platform.

Microsoft MASM has about 30 different incarnations, all accepting different syntax.

It's a *constant* source of grief for customer support.


> 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.

I'd be forced to write a standalone assembler if D didn't have inline assembler.

In any case, inline assembler in D is a substantial productivity booster for me 
for anything that needs assembler. The inline assembler is also quite ignorable, 
if you don't like it.