Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!jdickson
From: jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Assembler Programming - Costs versus Ben
Message-ID: <1990Dec5.161822.23869@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 5 Dec 90 16:18:22 GMT
References: <02129021:20:42GB03@lehigh.bitnet>
Reply-To: jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 43

In article <02129021:20:42GB03@lehigh.bitnet> GB03@Lehigh writes:
>Programming with an assembler or in machine code is an exercise in
>futility.  Any reasonable compiler will give code that is reasonably
>sized and fast.  Unless you have Knowledge of execution cycles, it is
>not very advantageous to use assemblers.  Many personal coding
>techniques do not exploit the potential size saving methods or cycle
>saving techniques.  Thus in general, any compiler will give better code
>than any individual assembler writer.  Also, using a compiler will give
>better transportablity than assembler.  Finally, the best way to
>achieve efficiency is to develope a good algorithm.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Assembler Programming - Costs versus Ben
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <02129021:20:42GB03@lehigh.bitnet>
Sender: 
Reply-To: jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Keywords: 

In article <02129021:20:42GB03@lehigh.bitnet> GB03@Lehigh writes:
>Programming with an assembler or in machine code is an exercise in
>futility.  Any reasonable compiler will give code that is reasonably
>sized and fast.  Unless you have Knowledge of execution cycles, it is
>not very advantageous to use assemblers.  Many personal coding
>techniques do not exploit the potential size saving methods or cycle
>saving techniques.  Thus in general, any compiler will give better code
>than any individual assembler writer.  Also, using a compiler will give
>better transportablity than assembler.  Finally, the best way to
>achieve efficiency is to develope a good algorithm.

	Where do people come up with this garbage? I don't program the
Amiga is assembly, but I have programmed other makes. Assembly generates
the fastest loops, tightest code, and smallest executable size. 

	As far as the above persons opening statement, "Programming with
an assembler or in machine code is an exercise in futility" - I don't
agree. Saying that work is futile, is an exercise in laziness.

					Jeff