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: