inlining or not inlining...

[Adam D. Ruppe]

bearophile wrote:
> There is not much intrinsic in the asm language that forces people
> to not define and use a good type system on asm instructions to
> catch programming bugs, to indent asm code well, to use a modern
> IDE on asm code, and so on.

All of this has been done, and caught on to a huge degree.
They called that asm+types language "C" (especially Digital Mars
C, which has an excellent inline asm; I can't imagine I would have
gotten anything done back in the day using the shitty gcc asm).

Of course, we've improved upon that even more, and called it "D".


If you're writing any large amount assembly today, it is often
because you specifically don't want those kind of things because
they either get in the way or are just useless for the task at hand.

For the parts when such things are desirable, you write it in C
and friends.