Re: A89: Re: "Transfer" of values between C and ASM

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

Re: A89: Re: "Transfer" of values between C and ASM


Ok, I can see your point in some of this but generally, ASM programs will
run faster then C programs even if they take much longer to make. You have
made good points and I was being too general.

-'FuZeD

b.t.w. a 400mhz x86 computer would most likely run more then 40x the speed
of the 89. This is because desktop "computers" have more RAM, higher bus
speeds, and better instruction sets. I'm not saying that a 400mhz 68k
processor wouldn't run 40x as fast but you catch my drift.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Davis <adavis@baladyne.com>
To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Monday, August 09, 1999 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: A89: Re: "Transfer" of values between C and ASM


>
>}InFuZeD{ wrote:
>>
>> Ummm....No they cant =P
>
>Ummm?  You sound unsure.  You should be unsure, since a good C programmer
can
>tweak their program to compile to the same optomized asm code an assembler
would
>produce.  Hello, let's think about this for a minute.  You know that C
compiles
>to assembly, which is then assembled to machine code.  With a good two or
even
>three pass compiler, made by those who know the processor inside and out,
the
>assembly produced by the compiler rivals that which is hand produced.
There is
>only a finite amount of tweaking which can be done to a program produced in
>assembly, and a good compiler used by a good programmer will produce code
that
>is that good.
>
>> Note that C is a "High Level" language and that Asm
>> is a "Low Level" language =P
>
>So noted.  It is a common misconception that all high level languages are
>inefficient and bloated.  Of course, that is the same as saying "All
>generalities are false (Including this one)"  Please don't generalize.
>
>> You'd have to modify your C program ALOT w/
>> bits of asm code to make it run as fast.
>
>That is not correct as long as you have a good programmer and a good
compiler.
>Secondly, you would not have to modify it "ALOT".  A decent programmer with
a
>decent compiler will produce code where, while not efficient, and perhaps a
>teeny bit bloated, there would be little or no speed difference between it
and
>asm code(to the user, on a 10MHz 68k).  Except, of course, the time it took
to
>develop that program.
>
>> I'm not talking about on the
>> computer because computers are fast enough either way not to really show
>> much difference.
>
>Ok, so what you are saying is that the 68k processor is not a 'computer'???
>Please enlighten me as to your definition of 'computer'.  I suppose you
mean
>modern computers which run at 400+MHz.  Only 40 times faster than our calc,
I
>might add.
>
>> The fact is that Asm programs are faster then those coded
>> in C (if the asm programmer knows what he's doing =)
>
>Sorry, that is not a fact.  It is a generality.  Given two decent
programmers,
>one programming in assembly, the other in C, both using free programming
>utilities on a familiar platform, the program from the first will be
slightly
>smaller, and slightly faster.  The second programmer will spend at least
half as
>much time coding and debugging.
>
>Of course, given two great programmers, each using professional development
>tools, and each tweaking for maximum effect, the output will be exactly the
>same... But the ASM programmer will still have spent twice as much time as
the C
>programmer.  But then we're talking about programming tools in the 1-20
grand
>price range.  Everything is a trade off.
>
>>
>> -'FuZeD
>
>I do not mean to sound like a jerk, but I program professionally, as well
as a
>hobbyist on both computers and embedded systems.  A good one, not a great
one.
>If there were a clear advantage to using ASM to make my programs, I would
be
>doing it.  The slight performance decrease in programs which I do not tweak
is
>worth the gained time.  I can see though, that for those for whom it is a
hobby,
>it is thrilling to gain that slight increase - at the cost of time.  For a
>hobbyist, time is not directly proportional to money.
>
>-Adam
>
>P.S.  Now here's the funny part - I know C and C++, and would rather
program in
>it, but, get this - My employer has me program in Visual Basic.  His
reasoning?
>The development cycle is faster, and he and the other embedded engineers
can
>program it themselves if need be.  <sigh>  (that's one tradeoff I would
rather
>not make... But hey, They tell me what to do, I get a paycheck.  It's
pretty
>simple...)
>
Follow-Ups: