Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!fadden From: fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Choosing a language (ML vs HLL) Message-ID: <13416@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 7 May 91 05:44:03 GMT References: <9105061749.AA08371@apple.com> Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU Lines: 31 In article <9105061749.AA08371@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >On Fri, 3 May 91 16:16:01 GMT Jerry Shekhel said: >>GOOD programmers that use HLLs can write HLL programs that are just as >>fast and efficient as GOOD assembler programs. > >I agree with everything you said in your post, except this one sentence. >This is definitely not true. It's impossible to program something like >what FTA does in HLL alone. HLLs are not as fast as assembly. That's just [snip] Yup. I originally wrote Arc3D in APW C (even the line drawing code). There's an order of magnitude difference, even though I wrote the C code with translation to assembly in mind (i.e., the algorithms didn't change). Hell, the C version of Bresenham's algorithm was even slower than the toolbox... >>In this world of new >>hardware coming out every few days and super-optimizing compilers, That's the problem... there's no super-optimizing compiler for the //gs. Since there very likely will never be one, assembly is here to stay. >>| jerry@polygen.com | > pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) ..!ucbvax!cory!fadden fadden@hermes.berkeley.edu (when cory throws up)