Re: Future development

On 10/5/07, David Abrahams <daveboost-consulting.com>
wrote:
>
> on Fri Oct 05 2007, "Ray Lambert"
<codemonkey-AT-interthingy.net> wrote:
> > David Abrahams wrote:
> >> on Thu Oct 04 2007, Ray Lambert
<codemonkey-AT-interthingy.net> wrote:

[snip]

> >> The task of representing low-level instruction
streams.  Some
> >> assemblers have sprouted sophisticated macro
systems and other
> >> high-level constructs (sort of like some makes
have sprouted
> >> complicated features), but somehow compilers
just seem to generate
> >> fairly straightforward, low-level asm code.
> >
> > Compilers do that because there IS NOTHING ELSE at
that level.
>
> Totally false: http://www.b
ixoft.nl/english/course6.htm

Even if assemblers have macro systems, I wouldn't say
assembly has it.
As far as I know, assembly is just a textual representation
of machine
code. Those macro systems are just extensions, the same way
C++
compilers offer extensions.

[snip]

> >> Assembly and machine code are very different.

And that's why I can't agree with this too.

[snip]

> --
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> http://www.boost-cons
ulting.com

Regards,
-- 
Felipe Magno de Almeida
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build