New slides about Go

[Paulo Pinto]

Not sure about their rationale, but here is a Visual C++ team blog entry 
about it:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2007/10/18/new-intrinsic-support-in-visual-studio-2008.aspx


"Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i9a2t3$26pm$1 at digitalmars.com...
> 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.