Re: A86: Re: Assembly-86 Digest V1 #873
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A86: Re: Assembly-86 Digest V1 #873
Well, folks. I'm looking at my C++ book right now and reading about
modern C++ compiled code vs. modern Assembler code. Basically it
says that nowadays, C++ compilers have become so damned efficient
that quite often they write better assembler code equivalents than
people do. So. What say ye to that, hm? =)
>From: David Reiss <dlreiss@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org
>To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org
>Subject: A86: Re: Assembly-86 Digest V1 #873
>Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:23:05 -0400
>
>
>> WRONG! You sure you want to debate this? This is all imho
(meaning it's MY
>> PERSONAL OPINION and this not a flame), but the AP classes are the
worst
>> teaching idea ever. How can you go a whole year in "AP Computer
Science",
>> take a test that's gives you college credit for the first
semester/year, and
>> still not know to handle strings or linked lists?
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Now, you have a almost-perfectly designed Z80 machine with 128k
ram (so it
>> has a few quirks, has to be a challenge somewhere :) and are
graced with a
>> full host of development tools, emulators and documentation,
allowing you to
>> easily and fully enjoy programming it in assembly, and you want to
go and
>> screw it up by writing a compiler?
>
>Wow. I agree with every single line of this. I too refuse to use
>anything I couldn't write myself, or at least understand fully.
>I never use the C++ template classes (Array, Vector, etc.), and
>I hate MFC and OWL because they produce bloated code.
>
>Now, about making asm easier:
>You write programs in asm to make them smaller, faster, and more
>capable. Have you ever looked at the output of a basic->asm
translator?
>It is not smaller, not faster, and no more capable than the original
>basic program. The same goes for C compilers. A 'hello world' program
>will be at least a few hundred bytes long because of the large run-
time
>library that the compiler has to add. If you can't write programs in
>pure asm, you obviously won't be able to write good, tight, optimized
>code that is the whole point
>of writing in asm anyway.
>
>If you want to make it easier for people to learn asm, WRITE GOOD
>TUTORIALS. Don't make macros that take away the opportunity to
squeeze
>one more byte out of a routine. Write tutorials that explain what is
>going on inside the calculator. For example, if a tutorial explains
what
>happens when you call a routine (the pc is pushed onto the stack,
then
>people can figure out for themselves that you can jump out in the
middle
>of a routine as long as you pop a register pair.
>
>Also, don't forget that asm programming is not for everyone. It's a
lot
>harder than using ti-basic. A RAD for asm is almost a contradiction.
If
>you want RAD, use basic. If you want small, fast, good programs, use
>asm,
>but use it the right way.
>
>(BTW, does anyone have a list of exactly what opcodes affect the
flags?)
>
> David Reiss
> dlreiss@worldnet.att.net
>
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Follow-Ups: