Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!jack!crash!pro-charlotte.cts.com!steelie
From: steelie@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Jim Howard)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Assembly for graphics
Message-ID: <2734@crash.cts.com>
Date: 26 Mar 88 04:58:31 GMT
Sender: news@crash.cts.com
Lines: 35

>From: info-amiga shimoda@rmi.UUCP (Markus Schmidt)
>Hi!
>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.

>|._,|   Cu
> - -    Markus
>==O==   (shimoda@rmi.UUCP)
> `-'    Never trust a smiling cat!

'C' produced similar sized code only in NEETO.as because it was an extremly
basic program- and had no reason to use any speedy routines.
 
If you think C is just as good as assembly, try doing a few _ScrollRaster's
in C, and then start up a few sprites. Then for fun just put a dual playfield
in there. Pretty slow eh?

In most cases assembly will produce MUCH smaller executables, and if the
programmer is good enough, MUCH faster executables too. 
 
*BUT* I admit writing in assembler is enough to give anyone a headache, and
for most applications, C will cut development time greatly. But if you are 
doing heavy graphics routines-or just IO routines that have to be blazing
fast, assembly is the way to go.
"The crash of the whole solar and stellar systems could only kill you once."
 
UUCP:  ....!crash!pro-charlotte!steelie   INET:  steelie@pro-charlotte.cts.com
                  INET:  crash!pro-charlotte!steelie@nosc.mil