Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available -

der Mouse wrote: Okay, to specify this claim a bit more: there are still applications where you use assembler, or rather, it is not complete applications but small subroutines which cannot be efficiently done with C code, for instance the low-level part of an interrupt dispatcher, or some initialization parts of a kernel that fiddle with special registers or enable paging or alike. Also few parts of a standard library that deal with I/O ports are often written in assembler, provided the C compiler does not already know how to handle them. Other than that, the current generation of so-called "programmers", according to my observation, avoid anything that is not close to be clickable, or "object-oriented" (read: blown-up, slow, inefficient - not the classic OO style as it was intended - programming skills haven't really improved since COBOL days): assembler is 666, size or speed, or engineering quality no longer matters; get the junk out of the door before the enterprise is reorganized or the dept is closed. Concerning that playstation game which I don't know, I'd rather interpret that as advertising bullshit. One could simply count the number of people involved in programming the core and estimate how many lines of assembly one would have needed to write. If the result were even in the 10**5..6 range or even higher, I'd consider this unrealistic unless one speaks of excessive code duplication. Some code like the OS/2 kernel is about 2 thirds of assembly code, the rest is 16 bit or 32 bit C, but this is about 800K executable size - not really millions of LOC.

Holger