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

To: <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A86: Re: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?
From: "David Phillips" <david@acz.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 23:10:14 -0500
Delivered-To: assembly-86-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org
References: <19990429081823.13476.rocketmail@send205.yahoomail.com>
Reply-To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org


AFAIK, there's no advantage to writing (most) math programs in asm instead
of basic.  Basic was designed to be used to write math type programs, not
games.  Heck, what is basic?  Once compiled (tokenized), it's just a list of
tokens and system commands that the OS runs through.  I've seen direct ports
of basic math programs to asm, and they're just as slow.  The floating point
calls take the same ammount of time, whether under basic or asm.  IMHO, if
you're just needing a math program and not something terribly complex, you
shouldn't waste the time writing it in asm.

Now, something like Kirk's Cymbol, that's going to be cool :)


>
> 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.

References:

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

From: David Thomas <david_hd@yahoo.com>

Prev: Re(2): Re(2): A86: Re: SAT
Next: A86: Re: [OT] RE: A TI compiler - Why not?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread