From: "Roger Scudder" 

On Friday, May 07, 2004 at 7:11 PM Bruce D. Wedding wrote:

> > OK, now this one looks very interesting.  I'm wondering how
practical
> > it would be to code in assembler rather than C to get around the 2K
> > limit. What do you think?  I have minimal knowledge of x86
assembler.
> > Am I looking at a great deal of self-inflected pain?  Would I be
> > missing out on cool C libraries?  Do I need to have my medication
> > increased again?

> I'm a C programmer and avoid assembly at all cost.  There are tons of
microcontroller
> devices out there with assembler though.  If you care to learn it go
for it but
> personally, I like C.  The compiler vendor will usually have some
processor specific
> header files that map in all the IO and peripherals for you making it
very easy to use.

I'm sure it's smart to stick with what you do best.  In life experiences
have found myself having to learn languages that I didn't particularly want
to out of necessity.  Where possible I try to stick to languages that are
the most "C like".  For example I prefer PHP to perl for web
development.  In the case of assembly language I have found that a basic
understanding (enough to read the assembly output from a windows debugger)
can be can be a good skill to have.  I doubt that I will ever break down
and learn to write windows programs in assembler (only crazy people do that
now ;-)).  On the other hand, I may be willing to invest the time to learn
to program in assembler on a different architecture if that architecture is
significantly less complex (assuming less complex
== easier to learn).

> If you're creative, you can do a lot with 2k.

I bet you can.  It would probably be good practice for me to work under
those constraints.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag-5