Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!wanginst!vaxine!encore!terryk
From: terryk@encore.UUCP (Terence Kelleher)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Portable C vs Efficient C or "Cost of Portability"
Message-ID: <1541@encore.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 12-Apr-87 20:42:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: encore.1541
Posted: Sun Apr 12 20:42:45 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 10-May-87 03:46:51 EDT
References: <213@pyuxe.UUCP> <636@edge.UUCP>
Reply-To: terryk@encore.UUCP (Terence Kelleher)
Organization: Encore Computer Corp., Marlborough, MA
Lines: 19


Why use C for efficient code? I write controller applications for I/O 
systems and would rarely consider assembly, even though efficiency is
a prime concern.  Most C compilers will generate code ,from good source
that is as good as the average assembly code.  The C code has a better
chance of being maintainable, by the author or others. C code can be
generated in a fraction of the time that it would take to write the
same functions in assembly.

I don't think these points are at all original.  I have worked on disk
systems, communications processors and graphics. In these areas, C has
seemed to be the language of choice, even though the nature of low level
I/O precludes portability.

I summery, C is faster, cheaper and far less hassle than assembly.  Even if
you don't care about portability, C makes sense.

Terry Kelleher
Encore Computer Corp.