Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!ucsd!ucrmath!maris!rhyde
From: rhyde@maris.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: HLLs vs. Assembly
Message-ID: <13614@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 91 19:32:34 GMT
References: <13345@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <1035@stewart.UUCP> <13494@ucrmath.ucr.edu> <15838@smoke.brl.mil>
Sender: news@ucrmath.ucr.edu
Reply-To: rhyde@maris.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Lines: 21


Well, I will post my CRC algorithms a little later (I don't have them here at
school, you'll have to wait until I get home).  I will attack one premise of
yours (or, perhaps, support it).  You state the following:

"It is a fair comparison, because it uses the same algorithm with the same
interface constraints (e.g., must be callable from C)."

If these are the constraints you place on assembly language programming then
I must support *your* position 100%.  It would not be worthwhile writing
*anything* (well, just about anything) in assembly language.  I don't know if
you were the original poster (my memory fades fast on these rwar topics), some-
one around here stated that you should always stick to the abstract model of
computation that a language has to offer.  Anytime you attempt to force one
model of computation on a language not suited for it, the end result is in-`
efficiency.  If you are going to act as a "human compiler" for C, your assembly
language code is not going to be as good as someone who "thinks" in assembly
language.  I do not have time, right now, to analyze your algorithm.  As soon
as I figure it out I'll post another version of it.  We'll see if I can do
any better (perhaps, perhaps not).
*** Randy Hyde