Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!udel!haven!decuac!bacchus.pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm From: mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Assembler Programming - Costs versus Benefits Message-ID: Date: 28 Nov 90 22:52:06 GMT References: <1990Nov25.040121.10773@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1990Nov25.233007.19698@cs.umu.se> <7139@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1990Nov28.105607.26577@cs.utwente.nl <8289@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 20 In-Reply-To: jnmoyne@lbl.gov's message of 28 Nov 90 21:22:07 GMT In article <8289@dog.ee.lbl.gov> jnmoyne@lbl.gov (Jean-Noel MOYNE) writes: Well, it really depends on the way you program in asm ! If your asm programs are only 5% faster than your C ones, then forget about asm. But if you need speed (the main reason you write part of your code in asm usually), and if you know about good asm programming then you can use asm and it will be more than 5% faster than C. Yeah, if you're only getting 5% out of recoding in asm, you're probably doing something wrong. In the right circumstances, you can buy almost a factor of 10 more speed out of asm. Of course, if you did it right in the first place, and went to a good CS reference library instead of the asm manual, you'd realize that the factor of 10 is the bare beginnings of what you can do. Instead of talking about 10 times as fast, you talk about n-squared as fast. And you can still code in something where you don't have to worry about the trivia.