Re: A86: Re: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A86: Re: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?




It depends what you're doing... for games, I agree
that ASM is the only way to go; but for some math
progs I've written have really been much too intense
for BASIC to handle in a reasonable amount of time,
but were simply to difficult to code in ASM. It is in
areas like this where a new language might be very
welcome.

--- David Phillips <david@acz.org> wrote:
> 
> > I see no problem with making an intermediate
> language.  Sure it may not
> > be as fast as pure asm but there has to be a trade
> off between ease of
> > use and speed.  It's like programming a pc game in
> pure asm or c++.  The
> > pure asm game written properly would most likely
> be more efficient then
> > the c++ version but do people really want to spend
> hours upon hours
> > programming complex games in asm.  Do you have a
> concept of how few games
> 
> There is a VAST difference between a desktop
> computer and a Z80 with 64k
> ram.  You cannot get any efficiency out of a
> compiler for a z80.  Whereas on
> a more recent processor (more true to RISC's than
> CISC's, but all the same)
> it is possible for well written C code to perform
> close to that of hand
> coded asm.  id's DOOM proved that.  It was written
> almost entirely in C, and
> was extremely portable.  It was rumored that the it
> took them less than a
> week to port the NeXT version to the PC (it was
> developed on a NeXT
> workstation).
> 
> But that's John Carmack and a computer, not a z80
> based calculator.  Not the
> same thing, not by a long shot.
> 
> > there would be if they had to be programmed in
> pure asm?  There have been
> 
> I agree there.  It would be nearly impossible to
> create huge games on the PC
> in asm.  However, most Gameboy games are written in
> pure asm (to my
> knowledge), and there are over 1000 titles for it. 
> Again, big difference.
> 
> > a few attempts already to create ti languages...
> HAL and Small-C are two
> 
> >From my experience, both produce very poor code
> compared to hand coded asm.
> 
> > examples.  If you look at these two intermediate
> languages you will find
> > that they both have one major similarity.. They
> are both run-time based.
> > Both have a standard library of routines that are
> automatically added to
> > the begining of every program.  This is just one
> example of things that
> > could be easily changed to make a better
> intermediate language.
> 
> The problem here is that if you only have 1 or 2
> programs written in this
> special language, then you will waste TONS of space.
>  This is way there are
> no libraries with Usgard and CrASH.  It is
> innefficient.
> 
> >
> > Just my $.02
> 
> Glad someone else has an opinion :)
> 
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



Follow-Ups: