Re: ASSEMBLY vs C(++)

mac@coos.dartmouth.edu (Alex Colvin)
8 May 1997 21:32:13 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
ASSEMBLY vs C(++) nop05288@mail.telepac.pt (W!cked) (1997-05-04)
Re: ASSEMBLY vs C(++) tgl@netcom.com (1997-05-08)
Re: ASSEMBLY vs C(++) David.Monniaux@ens-lyon.fr (1997-05-08)
Re: ASSEMBLY vs C(++) mac@coos.dartmouth.edu (1997-05-08)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: mac@coos.dartmouth.edu (Alex Colvin)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 8 May 1997 21:32:13 -0400
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
References: 97-05-047
Keywords: C, assembler, performance

"W!cked" <nop05288@mail.telepac.pt> writes:


> [ relative merits of assembler vs. HLL ? ]


Many of us have written entire programs in assembly. Large ones too.
That's why we now use C when we can.


And yes, you could write Quake in assembler, and carefully tune it,
and it would probably run faster, and you might have it tuned for the
486 just about the time everyone started running on a 986.
--
Alex Colvin
alex.colvin@dartmouth.edu
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.