Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!sunee!sjorr
From: sjorr@sunee.waterloo.edu (Stephen Orr)
Subject: Re: Correct Amiga Assembly Programming Techniques
Message-ID: <1990Dec30.173939.22831@sunee.waterloo.edu>
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <6579.277D75B3@zswamp.fidonet.org>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 90 17:39:39 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <6579.277D75B3@zswamp.fidonet.org> Paul.Fife@p0.f178.n221.z1.fidonet.org (Paul Fife) writes:
>If you write to the hardware (in assembly) the program will be faster 
>(mabye not noticablely - i haven't tried to find the difference) The 
>majority ( if not all) of the graphics.library functions are written 
>in C as well as being multipurpose while what you write will be more 
>specific. My suggestion is to try it with a few situations both ways 
>and see what you need to do.

Only one suggestion here. Think about the longevity of your code. If
you decide to code for that little extra bit of speed, and by-pass the
graphics library, then what happens if/when Commodore starts supporting
'alternate display devices'. For instance, if/when the OS supports things
like the UofLowell card under AmigaDOS, a call to BlitBitMap() will
be diverted by the graphics library to and equivalent call for the ULowell
card. IE: the OS will take care of it.

If on the other hand you code directly to the Blitter, the Lowell Card or
whatever most likely won't see what you are doing. This may not be
important to your application I don't know, but in many cases, like
word processing or spreadsheets, or DTP, it is essential to do as much
as possible to stay inside the OS.

								Stephen Orr
								SandIsoft