Re: A83: nothing important

To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A83: nothing important
From: AtmaZ@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 20:58:55 EST
Delivered-To: assembly-83-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
Reply-To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org


> Can I program be samller or faster in BASIC than ASM if the code is well 
>  optimised ?

I did a small test with CalcEm--two programs, one in BASIC, the other in
unsquished ASM, that did a very simple job--clearing the screen.

The BASIC program was 12 bytes.  The ASM program was 31 bytes.

Now before I get flamed about this, let me bring to light a few things:

I know that people will make far more complex programs than this, and then the
same rules may not apply.  HOWEVER, unsquished ASM programs have a lot of
"wasted space" (i.e. the End and 0000 tokens, not to mention that each
instruction takes 4 bytes + data).  Also, squished ASM programs require a
shell or ZASMLOAD, which tacks on an extra 670 bytes or so (and with ZASMLOAD,
free memory >= program size.)

So...ASM is good for speed, flexibility, and power. BASIC is good for size
optimization.

If you get different results, tell me...

--David