Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Assembler Programming - Costs versus Benefits Keywords: development time, porting time, hardware upgrade cycle Message-ID: <7150@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 28 Nov 90 12:19:02 GMT References: <1990Nov25.040121.10773@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1990Nov25.233007.19698@cs.umu.se> <7139@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1990Nov27.004859.16630@cs.umu.se> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 16 In article <1990Nov27.004859.16630@cs.umu.se> dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) writes: > 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. Almost certainly true. On the other hand, very few of these games run on my Amiga 3000. If they were in C they would certainly be fast enough on this machine. (not to mention that Psygnosis and the Bitmap Brothers tend to specialise in absolutely glorious games that are extremely low in playability, but that's another point) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .