Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!astroatc!jojo
From: jojo@astroatc.UUCP (Jon Wesener)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Bryce's new job ...
Message-ID: <912@astroatc.UUCP>
Date: 24 Mar 88 21:04:41 GMT
References: <25233@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <933@rmi.UUCP>
Reply-To: jojo@astroatc.UUCP (Jon Wesener)
Organization: Astronautics Technology Cntr, Madison, WI
Lines: 28
Keywords: smaller, tighter, faster ... do in in assembly!

In article <933@rmi.UUCP> shimoda@rmi.UUCP (Markus Schmidt) writes:
>I hate assembler too & if you really do C right you don't need
>assembler too often. 
>Dunno if someone has tried Leo Schwab's NEETO.ASM. It was pure
>assembly and had 340 Bytes. I tried to do the same in C and did
>it with 348 Bytes.
>Or I have written a filebrowser that \is 
>*entirely* "C" and scrolls nearly as fast as BLITZ.  If you say
>Assemby is 100%  (code and speed) good "C" can be 120% (20%
>slower and bigger) and 50% delvelopmenttime.

I used to write a lot of assembly, and have since decided to stay
entirely away from it if possible.  Every try to port things written
in assembler to a different machine with a different cpu?

2ndly, I write device drivers for high performance disk drives, printers,
ethernets, etc and nothing is done in assembler, all C and all symbolically
debuggable with dbx.  We may have a few routines optimized for speed
written in assembler, like bcopy() but that's about it.  These drivers are
a pain to debug, but I wouldn't even attempt to write them in assembler
just because we couldn't afford the debug time, or the non-portability.

--j
-- 
jon wesener
... {seismo | harvard | ihnp4} ! {uwvax | cs.wisc.edu} ! astroatc!jojo

"I say, why are those buildings swaying like trees?"