Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!marque!gryphon!richard
From: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Assembly for graphics
Message-ID: <3108@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Date: 3 Apr 88 18:32:07 GMT
References: <2734@crash.cts.com> <3013@gryphon.CTS.COM> <384@uvicctr.UUCP>
Reply-To: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 31
Keywords: Assembly Small Fast BETTER

In article <384@uvicctr.UUCP> sdean1@uvicctr.UUCP (Steven A. Dean) writes:
>I wrote:
>>Ok, now LISTEN this time.
>>
>>"If the programmer knows their compiler, knows their machine, and knows what
>>they are doing, the speed penalty for using C is very small".
>>[...]
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>------------------------------------------------------|||
>Yes!  BUT! Sometimes very small isn't good enough!

This is completely true. However the percentage of code for which "very small
isn't good enough" in a given program is very small. From empirical observation
i would guess 2%.

>Besides, if you write a 
>lot in assembly, you can produce code that's smaller (almost always) and
>runs faster (always, unless you are awful at assembly).  You also have to
>learn ALL of the idiocyncrasies (sp?) of your compiler before you can 
>make your code jump through loops... with an assembler (even one that
>does you *favours* like converting move.l #0,d0 to moveq #0,d0) you just 
>need to know your assembly.  Period.

No one said it was easy. But it's a lot easier that doing everything in 
machine language.

But you dont have to believe me, pick up your assembly manual and knock
yourself out.
-- 
         "Ever since the world ended... I don't go out as much"
   richard@gryphon.CTS.COM                  rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard