|ASSEMBLY vs C(++) firstname.lastname@example.org (W!cked) (1997-05-04)|
|Re: ASSEMBLY vs C(++) email@example.com (1997-05-08)|
|Re: ASSEMBLY vs C(++) David.Monniaux@ens-lyon.fr (1997-05-08)|
|Re: ASSEMBLY vs C(++) firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-05-08)|
|Date:||4 May 1997 22:34:55 -0400|
|Keywords:||C, assembler, performance, comment|
This is an argument an we would like some help on this.
I think Assembly is faster than high level languages (eg. C, C++,
smalltalk,etc...) but is impractible in all but very small tasks (io
routines and such), and that if it wasn't for the developments in high
level languages computers would still be in the ww2 age.
My friend now:
I, in the other hand, think that maybe it's hard 2 code an whole
game/application in Assembly, but I think it's not an impossible task.
What I think happened is programmers got used 2 program mostly in C++
(or whatever gets they might use 2 code), therefore abandoning almost
completly (except for more routines) assembler. I think if u succefly
wrote a program in assembly, and as long as it was a good coder, the
game/application would b much faster, also different versions could be
optimized for different CPU's (ie: DX Pentium, Cyrix, whatever!). By
the way, would it be possible (in theory) that such an cpu-intensive
game such as Quake could run smoothly on a 486 DX4, if it was hand
optimized in assembly?
E-mail us at: email@example.com
Thanks in advance!!!
[This is an ancient argument. You can usually tweak small routines so
they're faster in assembler than in other languages, but large
programs rarely turn out better, both because assembler programs are
longer and so harder to write and debug, and because assemblers offer
little support for sophisticated data structures so you have trouble
using faster but more complicated data structures and
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.