New slides about Go

[Paulo Pinto]

And to be abused as well.

I still remember having seen a C++ program in the MS-DOS days, where the 
only C++ feature
was main() and the other function names. All function bodys were inline 
assembly.

The developer had used the C++ compiler as a poor man's assembler.

I would rather not see such type of code in D.

Not to mention that it makes portability even worse. So besides having to 
have several #ifdefs for
different OS, you also need to have for different processor architectures.

Is D inline assembly supporting all x86 instruction set? What processors 
besides x86 are supported?

If I have to drop out to a real assembler for certain opcodes, then the gain 
of inline assembly is anyway
lost.

--
Paulo

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote in message 
news:i99d48$9mj$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Paulo Pinto:
>
>> Still most modern languages are moving away from inline assembly.
>
> Inline assembly is good to learn and teach assembly programming too :-)
>
> Today a good system language needs to be designed to minimize the need of 
> inline asm (see D vector ops), but it's a good thing to have as fall-back. 
> I'd like the asm expressions & the pragma(allow_inline), of ldc.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile