Message-ID: <3105@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 15:25:01 EST
Article-I.D.: utah-cs.3105
Posted: Thu Nov  8 15:25:01 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 03:51:00 EST
References: <104@water.UUCP> <208@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: e-smith@utah-cs.UUCP (Eric L. Smith)
Organization: Univ of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 28
Xref: utah-cs net.micro.cbm:898 net.micro.6809:317Summary: 

In article <208@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>While the 6809 is a superior chip to generate code for (by machine) it
>can't even touch the 6502 in speed for hand-written assembler code.
>-- 
>Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

I take this as a challenge.  Provide me with any non-trivial piece of code
for the 6502 (or even the newer CMOS versions with the added instructions)
and I will give you back an optimized 6809 version that will perform an
equivalent function in less bytes and using less clock cycles to run.

I have been a 6502 programmer since early '77, and a 6809 programmer since
mid '80, and while I have to admit that Motorola's byte ordering is completely
bass-ackwards from an efficiency viewpoint, the advanced features more than
make up for it.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality (for those who can't face computers):  Eric L. Smith
UUCP/UseNet:  ...decvax!utah-cs!e-smith  ARPA:  e-smith@utah-20
U.S.Snail:  230 S. 500 W. Suite 133, Salt Lake City, UT, 84101
AT&T and suchlike:  (801) 581-8100 (work), (801) 582-3371 (home)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the
University of Utah, my friends, enemies, computer, or even me.  I make no
warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy of this information of its
fitness for any particular purpose.  I assume no liability for any damages,
actual or alleged, directly or indirectly resulting from the use of or
inability to use this information.  So there!