Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!cs.umu.se!dvljhg
From: dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Assembler Programming - Costs versus Benefits
Keywords: development time, porting time, hardware upgrade cycle
Message-ID: <1990Nov27.004859.16630@cs.umu.se>
Date: 27 Nov 90 00:48:59 GMT
References: <1990Nov25.040121.10773@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1990Nov25.233007.19698@cs.umu.se> <7139@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Sender: news@cs.umu.se (News Administrator)
Organization: Dep. of Info.Proc, Umea Univ., Sweden
Lines: 17

In article <7139@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1990Nov25.233007.19698@cs.umu.se> dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) writes:
>> Try and write a fast shoot'em up in C or higher level languages.
>
>I've done it. Tracers is 100% C. And it runs faster than I can keep up with.

You can write a fairly complex, fast game in C. If you want to program
something like the what psygnosis, bitmap brothers, random access, factor5
and others are putting out, with large bobs and lots of other stuff taking
raster-time you will have to go assembly at least for part of the code.

Jorgen
-- 
*******************************************************************************
email dvljhg@cs.umu.se - other ways to communicate are a waste of time.
Everything I say is always true, just apply it to the right reality.
"Credo, quia absurdum est."