Re: A86: Re: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A86: Re: Re: [OT] A TI compiler - Why not?
Basic is great as far as it goes, but it can be SLOW!
Even when doing math stuff. I wrote a program to find
the number of decimal places before 1/n either starts
repeating or terminates, and when n got up into the
hundreds, the program would sometimes have to search
through a 100+ list. This is just too FUCKING slow. I
when finding the values when n was 100-150, I would
turn down my contrast and wait about half an hour
before it was done. It is stuff like that, where you
don't have to use really complicated computations, but
stuff that would be difficult to do in ASM, and a lot
of them, that's where an intermediate language would
fit.
--- David Phillips <david@acz.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Follow-Ups: