Thoughts about "Compile-time types" talk

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Friday, 17 May 2019 at 15:02:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> That's not quite true either. You can do abstraction just fine 
> in assembly with a readable assmbly language like Motoroal 68K 
> and a good macro assembler. It is more work, easier to make 
> mistakes, but whether you manage to do abstraction well is 
> mostly a property of the programmer (if the basic tooling is 
> suitable).

That said, a real problem with machine language is that 
restructuring the code becomes very expensive. So you need a 
waterfall development model. It is not very suitable for 
iterative development models.

Today, compilers often generate better code, so it is mostly 
pointless to use machine language unless you need to save space 
or want to utilize special properties of the hadware.

(sorry about the typos in the previous answer)