Re: A92: ASM Help
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A92: ASM Help
Howdy.
>1. I know that there is a difference between 92 assembly and 82 assembly,
>because they use different procs. Well, which is easier to learn?
You probably can't label one or the other as -easier-, they're just
-different-. The 82 uses the Z80, which is a little more like an Intel
chip (registers have specific functions, etc.). The 92 uses the 68000,
which is more like RISC chips (though it's definitely not one) in that
registers can be used for pretty much whatever you want. Coding complex
programs is probably easier on the 68000 because of memory management
functions and register handling. Also, the 68000 is indisputably more
powerful, so programming things like graphics is "easier" in the sense that
you can draw more stuff with less lag.
>2. What are the differences between 92 and 92+ ASM?
None in the language itself (except for assembler/linker differences in the
shells), but ROM functions have moved in memory and (I think) some hardware
addresses are different.
>3. Is ASM or C++ easier to learn in anyone's opinion?
C++, no question there. Basically everything that's not assembly is easier
to learn, and for a good reason: all other languages have been built on top
of machine language (and/or assembly) with the intention of making it more
human-friendly. C++ is easier than assembly, being a higher-level
language; BASIC is easier than C++, being an even higher level (higher
levels being farther from straight machine code). However, low level
languages (assembly) allow you much more control over exactly what's
happening in your program and in the system, and allow you more flexibility
to include functions that weren't designed into the language. Also,
writing directly in assembly sometimes earns a speed bonus because the
programmer can streamline the operations exactly as the processor will see
them, instead of letting another program (a compiler) do it for them.
--Cliff Biffle
Follow-Ups:
References: