Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mtndew!friedl
From: friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US (Steve Friedl)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: a style question
Message-ID: <537@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US>
Date: 5 Oct 90 04:45:57 GMT
References: <7341@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <1990Sep30.050655.13212@zoo.toronto.edu> <4762@navy8.UUCP>
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA
Lines: 24

In article <4762@navy8.UUCP>, kreidler@motcid.UUCP (Joe Kreidler) writes:
> 
> As software systems keep getting larger and more complex, it is
> important to develop code that is easy to understand and can be ported
> to new applications. This comes at the cost of less efficient code
> (when compared to assembler).

This is seductive but true only superficially.

Q: Given two equally-talented teams of programmers, one using C and
   one using assembler, which team will produce the system with best
   execution time for a non-trivial program?

A: The team writing in C.  While the assembler folks are busy optimizing
   that inner loop, the C people are testing three different algorithms
   to see which one is *really* faster.

     Steve

-- 
Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
+1 714 544 6561  / friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA.US  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

"There are no technical problems that marketing can't overcome" - Gary W. Keefe